Think Progress

Rep. King Reminisces About The Days When Football Players Could ‘Get A Job Because They Knew Someone’

Yesterday, Republican members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) dedicated a three and a half hour long pseudo-hearing in a nearly empty room in the Rayburn building to spewing their “well-worn rhetoric about the hordes of illegal aliens destroying the American way of life.” During the event, “American Jobs in Peril: The Impact of Uncontrolled Immigration,” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) seemed to suggest that the U.S. should rid itself of its immigrant workers because, back in the good ‘ol days, high school “football stars” could get good-paying jobs not because they were qualified to work at them, but rather, because “they knew someone”:

Thirty years ago in the packing plants there in that town — which I do call my hometown — you had to know somebody to get a job. And I can remember looking at the football stars on our football team that graduated back in those years in the mid to late 60s and thinking:

“Those guys will get the best-paying jobs at the beef plant. They can just take their degree and go out and get a job — if they know someone. If they don’t, they won’t get the job. Well I can’t do that because I’m not tall enough or strong enough.”

But today it’s entirely different.

Watch it:

King attributes the end of cronyism in the meatpacking industry and the deterioration of wages and working conditions to undocumented immigrants. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which has represented meatpackers for almost a hundred years, has a different take about the sequence of events.

Back in March, Center for Immigration Studies Senior Fellow Jerry Kammer — who was also a panelist at the event — offered an interpretation of the industry’s history similar to King’s, minus the football players. The UFCW was quick to point out that Kammer’s misinterpreted and manipulated “data to reach a totally biased and flawed conclusion” and demonstrated a “complete lack of understanding about the history of the meatpacking industry.” They also provided their own account of what happened:

Immigrants worldwide have been essential in strengthening the U.S. meatpacking industry, by organizing around increased wages and improved industry standards. But during the ‘80’s, something happened. Consolidation, mergers, and company-induced strikes helped drive down wages for meatpackers. During the strikes, companies aggressively recruited strike breakers-not immigrants but individuals who came from the decimated farm industry-to cross the picket lines.

Many of these workers soon realized something: these jobs were tough. Too tough to perform at the wages companies were offering. So, they left. But the damage was done. And the UFCW has been fighting to rebuild wages and standards for these jobs ever since.

In direct reference to yesterday’s event, UFCW’s Director of Civil Rights and Community Action, Esther Lopez, commented, “Given their [King and his allies] terrible track record on worker issues, it really is the height of hypocrisy that they are now trying to portray themselves as champions of workers.”

The House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) is a group of (mostly Republican) representatives founded by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) with the mission of stopping “the explosive growth in illegal immigration,” “reversing the growth in legal immigration,” and halting “amnesties.” The forum featured panelists from two of the three organization which “stand at the nexus of the American nativist movement,” and are often referred to as part of the “Nativist Lobby.”

Foxx: Republicans ‘Passed Civil Rights Bills Back In The 60s Without Very Much Help’ From Democrats

During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as “wild and scenic,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.

Foxx then extended her claims of the GOP’s progressive history to the issue of civil rights. “Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the ’60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle,” said Fox. “They love to engage in revisionist history.” When Foxx finally yielded her time on the floor, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) passionately rebuked her:

CARDOZA: Today, what I’m hearing on the floor really takes the cake. The gentlelady from North Carolina, in her statement just now, indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can’t believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administration where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman’s state that we passed that civil rights legislation. John Lewis…

FOXX: Would, would the gentleman yield?

CARDOZA: No, I will not yield. John Lewis, a member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn’t part of getting that legislation passed.

When she was given a chance to respond, Foxx could only say that Jesse Helms wasn’t elected to the Senate until 1972. Watch it:

Foxx’s claim that Republicans were the real engine behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a common notion among conservatives. But as Cardoza points out, it was President Lyndon Johnson who “choreographed passage of this historic measure in 1964.” In fact, the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), voted against the legislation.

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”

As Conservatives Fear-Monger Over Gitmo Closure, Illinois Town Says It Would Welcome Detainees

As part of the new administration’s efforts to shut down the “lawless enclave” at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, there is discussion of possibly moving detainees from the island prison to be incarcerated stateside (just like many other terrorism suspects). One possible site being considered to house these detainees is the mostly-empty Thomson Correctional Center in the rural town of Thomson, Illinois.

The right has exploited this possible move by fear-mongering to score political points. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) started circulating a letter among state officials telling President Obama, “If your Administration brings Al Qaeda terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago Metropolitan Area will become ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization.” Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) claimed that moving detainees to Thomson would make the city a “target for future terrorist activity.”

One group of people, however, that is not afraid of bringing detainees to Thomson is the residents of the city themselves. As the Chicago Tribune reports, a transfer of Guantanamo detainees to Thomson Correctional Center would be “greeted warmly” by the city’s residents, who would welcome the jobs created by such a move:

News that the federal government seems interested in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Thomson Correctional Center was greeted warmly in this small, rural farm town along the Iowa border.

After holding out hope that the sprawling $145 million prison might improve the economic conditions in this remote area of the state, residents say any prisoners would be a welcomed sight.

“It would help the businesses here, and God knows we could use that,” said Kay Lawton, 59, a Thomson resident. “It doesn’t matter to me who they bring here.”

“A murderer is a murderer no matter where he’s from,” [Thomson Village President Jerry] Hebeler said. “That’s the way I look at it.” [...]

“As long as it’s safe and we’re protected, I’m comfortable with it,” Hebeler said. “Maybe this is something that will put us on the map.”

CNN’s Gary Tuchman traveled to Thomson and interviewed its residents about their feelings about a possible transfer of Guantanamo detainees. He concluded that “for economic reasons, people are very much in support” of the transfer. Watch it:

In opposing the transfer of detainees to Thomson, Kirk and Manzullo are putting themselves at odds not only with job-seeking residents, but also fellow conservatives. In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr write, “We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries. … The scare-mongering about these issues should stop.”

Ted Haggard Mounts A Comeback By Lying: I Was Never ‘An Anti-Gay Guy’

Before resigning in disgrace after a three-year relationship with a male prostitute, Ted Haggard was one of the Christian Right’s most powerful figures — president of the National Association of Evangelicals and a close confidante of the Bush White House. Haggard, now purportedly “completely heterosexual,” hosted a prayer meeting at his Colorado home last night in an attempt to mount a comeback, attracting 110 people. Saying “America loves a scandal, but they love a comeback even more,” Haggard argued he can redeem himself in part because he was never a “hateful, anti-gay guy”:

“I was always well aware of my own personal struggles, but my desire was to be more Godly,” said Haggard. “I was never a religious right, hateful, anti-gay guy — secretly running off, except right at the end. I’d say right at the end, before the crisis. That did develop a little bit stronger.” [...]

“It was good for me to go through the Christian hatred of people believing that I was a gay man — and hating me so strongly because of it. And so because of it, my compassion for the homosexual community has gone up incredibly,” said Haggard.

Haggard has experienced what it’s like to be on the receiving end of “Christian hatred,” and it’s reassuring to know that he now has more “compassion” for gay men and women. But despite his claims, he was responsible for dishing out this hatred for many years.

Haggard catered to the Christian Right’s demonization of gays, calling homosexuality a “sin” and arguing, “We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.” Haggard also said that Western civilization could be devastated by same-sex marriage:

“[W]e need the Federal Marriage Amendment is for the sake of children. … It would be devastating for the children of our nation and for the future of Western civilization for us to say that homosexual unions or lesbian unions or any alteration of that has the moral equivalence of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage.”

Will Haggard finally practice what he preaches by pushing for equal rights for gay men and women?

Cao: Obama Administration ‘Has Been Tremendous’ For New Orleans On Katrina Recovery Effort

Last month, President Obama visted New Orleans for the first time since taking office and touted his administration’s focus on assisting the area’s still on-going recovery effort four years after Hurricane Katrina. “I’m pleased to report that we’ve made good progress,” he said. “We’ve got a long way to go, but we’ve made progress.”

But conservatives such as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) criticized Obama’s visit calling it a “drive-through daiquiri summit,” while others “criticized the president for not touring the battered wetlands.”

Yesterday during an interview with Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) — the lone Republican to vote for the House health care bill last week — Washington Times radio channeled the GOP criticism. “He didn’t even stick around very long during his trip,” the host said. But Cao defended what the administration has done for the area:

CAO: Well, I just want to set the record straight, that even though the President only visited New Orleans once since his election, it was a brief stay, but this administration has been tremendous for the people of the 2nd district. Secretary Napolitano has been down here three or four times, the secretary of HUD, the secretary of Education, they have been down here numerous times. [...]

So I guess for me, it’s not that important to have the visit of the President, its much more important for me that I have a good working relationship with the administration and have the commitment…from the administration to push all the recovery issues of the 2nd District forward and they have been doing that in the last 9 months.

Listen here:

Paul Rainwater, the executive director of the state-run Louisiana Recovery Authority, agrees with Cao’s approach. “I would say it’s more important to have your cabinet secretaries down here,” he said last month. Indeed, the White House said there were 22 visits by senior administration officials to the area from March to August, 13 of them by cabinet secretaries.

Five Days After Her ‘House Call,’ Bachmann Condemns Anti-Semitic Signs But Still Refuses To Apologize

One of the lasting images from Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) “House Call” — the right-wing “press conference” (i.e. rally) against health care reform on Capitol Hill last week — was a photograph captured by ThinkProgress here that read: “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945.” Another sign said that “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds [sic],” a reference to the famous Jewish banking family often implicated in conspiracy theories.

Prominent organizations and individuals in the Jewish community immediately condemned the displays and called on the protest’s organizers to take responsibility and apologize for ignoring the vile materials at the event. Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) posted a YouTube video and singled out Bachmann. Watch it:

Israel also sent a personal note to Bachmann requesting an apology but as of yesterday, she had not replied. She did, however, release a statement calling the anti-Semitic imagery at her House Call “regrettable” and “inappropriate,” but she still didn’t explicitly apologize for refusing to condemn the them earlier:

Sadly, some individuals chose to marginalize tragic events in human history, such as the Holocaust, by invoking imagery and labels which have no purpose in a policy debate about health care. These regrettable actions negatively shift the focus of the current discussion on this issue. The American people deserve an open and honest debate to ensure the best possible solution to our health care problems, and I agree that these unfortunate instances are wholly inappropriate.

It took Bachmann almost a full five days to publicly comment on the anti-Semitic displays. According to her spokeswoman, the congresswoman also “sent a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council expressing her concerns and ongoing support for the Jewish community.” When Politico asked House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-OH) spokesman for comment on these signs, he simply replied, “Leader Boehner did not see any such sign. Obviously, it would be grossly inappropriate.” Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph “inappropriate.”

Study: 2,200 Vets Died Last Year Because They Lacked Health Insurance

On the eve of Veterans Day, a team of researchers from Harvard Medical School has released a study finding that an estimated 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they did not have health insurance. That “translates to six preventable deaths per day” and more than twice the number killed in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001.

Being uninsured raises a person’s odds of dying prematurely by 40 percent. The researchers found that 1.46 million veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lacked insurance in 2008. While most veterans are eligible to receive excellent care from the Veterans Administration, those who were not injured in combat and whose income is above a certain threshold are often ineligible. Others are assigned low priorities, providing them with less consistent and more expensive access to care:

“Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people – too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]

Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the analysis and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, “On this Veterans Day we should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who were killed by our broken health insurance system. That’s six preventable deaths a day.”

Unfortunately, health insurance is just one of many serious problems vets face. Up to one-in-five veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, while male vets face suicide rates double the national average. And, as the VA under President Obama recognized, veterans still account for up to a quarter of all homeless.

The fact that even veterans cannot receive adequate health care demonstrates that the current system is broken and in need of dramatic overhaul. A robust public option will guarantee that vets and all working-class Americans will be able to afford quality health insurance. Still, the study’s authors warn that the health care legislation “would do virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013” and would “leave at least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,” leaving many veterans without care.

Rep. Kilroy: GOP Shouting Down Democratic Women Was A ‘Sexist’ Attempt To Put Us ‘In Our Place’ »

On Saturday, several Republican went wild and shouted down members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus on the House floor. As each woman stepped up to the microphone to give a brief statement about how the House health care legislation would benefit women, Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (GA) — repeatedly talked over them, screamed, and shouted screeds like “I object, I object, I object, I object, I object.”

Yesterday, ThinkProgress interviewed Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), one of the Democratic women who faced this treatment. Kilroy said unequivocally that the GOP’s actions were “sexist” and it would be “nice” if they apologized. She pointed to recent GOP comments about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — that it’s time to “put her in her place” — and said that’s exactly what Price and the other Republicans were doing on Saturday:

KILROY: [T]hree male members of Congress got up and started shouting down — trying to shout down the Democratic women. I thought it was loud, I thought it was rude, I thought it was disrespectful, and I thought it was sexist. [...]

Well, when you engage in loud, rude, and boorish behavior, my mother would have said they should apologize. I don’t expect an apology, but that would be nice to have that. But you know, you’re seeing this sexist behavior going on.

You heard recently comments — from the Republican side of the aisle, some of my Republican colleagues over there — saying Speaker Pelosi should be put in her place, and I think that’s what they thought they were doing with the Democratic women. And it’s simply outrageous to me to have women being treated like that on the floor of the House.

Listen here:

Yesterday on a Center for American Progress Action Fund conference call, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that Republicans have been essentially giving a “back-of-the-hand treatment to women,” pointing out that on Friday, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) “actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.”

Transcript: More »« Less

Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Republicans Are Giving Women A ‘Back-Of-The-Hand Treatment’

This morning, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) participated on a conference call with the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Judy Feder to discuss Republican efforts to shut out women’s issues in the health reform debate. Feder noted that in 2006, nine Senate Republicans voted to explicitly kill a proposal that would have ensured that insurance companies cannot use domestic violence as a pretext for denying coverage to women. The two went on to discuss how, as the House vote drew near, Republican lawmakers’ disregard for the interests of women became more apparent.

In the House Rules Committee the Friday before the vote, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who is also the chief recruiter for Republican House campaigns in 2010, justified the practice of insurance companies discriminating against women by comparing gender differences to smokers and non-smokers. The next day — on Saturday morning — Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and several of his GOP colleagues shouted down congresswomen making 1-minute speeches on the importance of health reform for women. Wasserman Schultz denounced the interruption tactics and Sessions’ comparison of women to smokers as the “Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women”:

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to express and underscore my concerns of essentially what amounts to the Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women, issues that are important to women, particularly women’s health. We already have had a clear sense that Republicans were opposed to our efforts to advance women’s health interests. Now we know we know they’re opposed to letting women voice opinions on health care as well. [...] My colleague Pete Sessions actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.

Listen here:

Indeed, asked by a witness why should a woman pay more for a man for health insurance premiums, the supposedly pro-life Sessions scoffed:

SESSION: We’re all different. Why should a smoker pay more than a non-smoker.

Watch it:

Insurance companies employ a variety of discriminatory practices towards women. In many states, insurance companies consider rape, previous pregnancies, a c-section, and domestic violence as preexisting conditions. President Obama’s health reform proposals, including the bill passed by the House on Saturday, will end all denials of care based on preexisting conditions and ban gender discrimination for premiums.

The Future Is Chaos: GOP Threatens Retribution Against Cao For Health Care Vote

Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) was solely responsible for dashing the Republican leadership’s hopes of having all 177 of its members vote against historic health care legislation on Saturday. Cao broke with his party and voted with Democrats after speaking personally to President Obama and pressing for more federal funds for his district, which is still struggling after Hurricane Katrina. In a statement, Cao explained that the needs of his constituents trumped partisan politicking:

I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding — if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children. [...]

I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.

The reaction to Cao from the right wing has been swift and fierce, with some comparing the only non-Hispanic minority in the GOP caucus to Mao Tse Tung and calling him racial epithets. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) — who has defended Cao’s vote — had to stand beside him during Saturday’s roll call, “fending off his GOP colleagues who might have twisted Cao’s arms.” Last week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made clear that moderates who don’t walk the Party line have no place in the GOP:

So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you.

Cao “chuckled” in response to Steele’s comments, pointing out that his vision would essentially lead the party toward a path of political suicide. “He has the right to come after those members who do not conform to party lines,” said Cao, “but I would hope that he would work with us in order to adjust to the needs of the district and to hold a seat that the Republican party would need.”

These far right statements represent a dramatic shift from where the GOP said it was heading just a year ago. After Cao won in his majority-Democratic district, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent out a memo reading “The Future is Cao“:

As House Republicans look ahead to the next two years, the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative, and work aggressively to earn the trust of the American people.

The GOP seems to no longer be interested in presenting “positive” alternatives or thinking “big.” Its alternative health care legislation didn’t even bar insurers from denying people based upon pre-existing conditions — a top priority of the American public. Additionally, instead of candidates like Cao, far-right candidates who are the darlings of the Tea Party movement (e.g. Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 special election) are winning out over moderates.

So if the “future is Cao,” when will Republicans follow his lead and put their constituents’ interests over those of Republican leaders and right-wing pundits?

Cantor Respects Limbaugh’s ‘Conservative Voice,’ But Rejects His Use Of Hitler Comparisons

On Bloomberg’s Political Capital, host Al Hunt asked House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) whether he agrees with hate radio host Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.” Limbaugh also compared the administration’s health care logo to a swastika.

Cantor hemmed and hawed in response. “Rush Limbaugh, other personalities…have opinions,” he said, emphasizing that the Republican Party is a “party of inclusion” that has room for voices like Limbaugh. But Cantor — the only Jewish Republican member of the House — clarified that he does not condone the use of Hitler “in any discussion of politics” and such comparisons “are not, I think, very helpful.”

Hunt pressed: “So it was inappropriate for Limbaugh to say that?” Cantor responded:

CANTOR: You know, look Al, I think Rush Limbaugh is a conservative voice for America. A lot of the things he says I agree with.

HUNT: But not that?

CANTOR: Right. I don’t condone the use of the word Hitler.

Watch it:

Steve Benen comments, “I suppose Eric Cantor deserves some credit” for his “mild and indirect rebuke. I’m just not sure if he’ll stick to it.” TPM notes that Cantor’s office is trying to highlight his independence from Rush by pointing reporters to the story.

Last week, Cantor’s spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to display a prominent photograph at a GOP rally comparing health care reform to the Nazi concentration camp in Dachau.

Is Glenn Beck Being Treated By SEIU Nurses?

One of right-wing TV host Glenn Beck’s most frequent targets is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Beck has in the past repeatedly referred to SEIU members as “thugs” involved in radical leftist conspiracies, even going as far as to say that SEIU president Andy Stern is trying to re-create the Bolshevik Revolution. “When you start to figure out who SEIU is and what they want, you’re not really comfortable,” Beck said last month.

In recent days, Beck has been hospitalized for appendicitis. As Alternet’s Alexander Zaitchik points out, the staff treating the ailing pundit is likely under the auspices of SEIU nurses:

The security-conscious Beck has not disclosed the name of the facility, but it’s a safe bet that it is staffed by proud members of a storied union: New York’s Local 1199, aka United Healthcare Workers East, which belongs to the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU has organized all of Manhattan’s major hospitals, including every facility to which Beck could have conceivably been sent.

Beck certainly isn’t complaining about being treated by nurses who were organized by the union he regularly demonizes. On his Twitter account, he praised the staff that is attending to him:

If it does turn out that Beck’s “amazing” nurses happen to be members of the SEIU, will he retract the statements he has made condemning the union or will he continue on his McCarthyite tirade?

Will Conservative Democrats Follow Graham’s Lead On Climate Policy?

Extensive coverage has been devoted to the fact that Lindsey Graham’s split on global warming and other issues highlights a rift in the Republican Party. While that’s true, another more important development has not been pursued: Graham’s departure from right-wing orthodoxy highlights the potential for conservative Democrats to follow in his footsteps.

Many conservative Democrats have questioned President Obama’s clean energy agenda. Now, a Republican is breaking with his party to talk sense. In a press conference yesterday with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Graham rebuked senators unwilling to address carbon pollution. Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Watch it:

Graham sounded more like Van Jones — the author of “The Green Collar Economy” who was branded by Glenn Beck as a “communist” — than many of his Democratic colleagues:

Max Baucus (D-MT): Montana, with our resource-based agriculture and tourism economies, cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation.

Evan Bayh (D-IN): Jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that.

Robert Byrd (D-WV): I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.

Byron Dorgan (D-ND): I just don’t think climate change is going to be on the floor this year. Trying to restart our economic engine and trying to get this country back to work — to me that is the most important issue.

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas.

Claire McCaskill (D-MO): I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.

Ben Nelson (D-NE): I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home are going to be disadvantaged.

Jim Webb (D-VA): We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.

Do these Democrats agree with Lindsey Graham that our planet “is in peril“? Do they agree with Graham that “limiting carbon pollution is good for business”? Will conservative Democrats follow Sen. Graham’s embrace of the “new green economy” — and shouldn’t they be asked if they will?

CNBC Reporter: Keflezighi’s Marathon Win Was ‘Empty’ Because He Was An Immigrant Rather Than U.S.-Born

On Sunday, U.S. media outlets reported that for the first time in 27 years, an American had won the New York City Marathon. Meb Keflezighi was born in Eritrea, “growing up in a hut with no electricity.” He and his family moved to Italy when he was 10 years old, and came to the United States two years later. Keflezighi “began running in junior high in San Diego, then went on to star at UCLA.” He said he it was with “big honor and pride” that he wore the USA jersey while running in the marathon. Watch a post-marathon interview with Keflezighi here:

However, CNBC Sports Business Reporter Darren Rovell doesn’t think Keflezighi deserves all this praise because when his mother gave birth to him, she wasn’t in the U.S. Rovell wrote a column yesterday saying that Keflezighi’s victory wasn’t “as good as it sounds” because Keflezighi is an immigrant, and this fact “takes away from the magnitude of the achievement the headline implies”:

Given our disappointing results, embracing Keflezighi is understandable. But Keflezighi’s country of origin is Eritrea, a small country in Africa. He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.

Nothing against Keflezighi, but he’s like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.

Around noon today, Rovell posted a “convoluted sort-of apology” clarifying yesterday’s piece, writing, “Let me be clear: Meb Keflezighi is an American and any suggestion otherwise is wrong.” He now granted Keflezighi’s win legitimacy only because the runner was “brought up through the American system”:

I said that Keflezighi’s win, the first by an American since 1982, wasn’t as big as it was being made out to be because there was a difference between being an American-born product and being an American citizen. Frankly I didn’t account for the fact that virtually all of Keflezighi’s running experience came as a US citizen. I never said he didn’t deserve to be called American. [...]

It turns out, Keflezighi moved to the United States in time to develop at every level in America. So Meb is in fact an American trained athlete and an American citizen and he should be celebrated as the American winner of the NYC Marathon. That makes a difference and makes him different from the “ringer” I accused him of being. Meb didn’t deserve that comparison and I apologize for that.

How long does someone have to be in the U.S. and go through the American “system” to be counted as legitimate? In today’s New York Times, academics who study race and sports note that there are still “undercurrents of nationalism and racism that are not often voiced” in sports. “There is this notion about innate physiological gifts that certain races presumably possess. Quite frankly, I think it feeds into deep-seated stereotypes,” said David Wiggins, a professor at George Mason University.

Yesterday, Keflezighi responded to the criticisms, saying, “I’ve had to deal with it. But, hey, I’ve been here 22 years. And the U.S.A. is a land of immigrants. A lot of people have come from different places.”

(HT: bustacap at DailyKos)

Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over His Vote Against Franken’s Amendment Holding Contractors Accountable

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?” Watch it:

Vitter’s criticism of the Obama administration isn’t quite correct. “While the Obama Defense Department raised concerns about the reach of the Franken amendment,” notes Stein, “the White House itself said it supported ‘the intent’ and was working to make sure it was ‘enforceable.’”

Rep. Markey Warns About Right-Wing Misinformation: Net Neutrality May Be The Next ‘Death Panels’

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission voted to move forward with regulations to preserve the open architecture of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is trying to make our current system’s “net neutrality” official by ensuring that broadband providers “cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications” and are “transparent about their network management practices.” That same day, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation to block the FCC, inexplicably arguing that preserving net neutrality would be a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Yesterday, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) held a conference call with bloggers to discuss net neutrality. He and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) have introduced legislation — which currently has seven co-sponsors — to “establish overarching national broadband policy and ensures an open and consumer oriented Internet.” Markey stressed the importance of fighting “misinformation,” invoking death panels and the other red herrings the right wing slung into this summer’s health care debate:

As you all know, a lot is being written and said about what open Internet requirements would mean for broadband investment innovation and consumers. [...]

It’s almost as though some people want to have their own equivalent of “death panels” that we had in the health care debate back in August. That was a red herring that took us off the main point of providing health care to everyone, for a month or six weeks. Now we’ve got that straightened out, but we have to battle hard to make sure the misinformation is responded and responded to in a very brief period of time.

Watch it:

Fox News host Glenn Beck has been fear-mongering on net neutrality for weeks, saying that the Obama administration is trying to shut down freedom of speech. “You have a freedom of speech or the government,” said Beck last week. “You can’t really have both.” He’s been getting his talking points from Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity, who also fueled Beck’s campaign against former Obama adviser Van Jones. Some telecom companies — which, along with the cable industry, is driving opposition to an open Internet — have begun astroturfing efforts as well.

The telecom and cable industries are the ones interested in controlling access to information on the Internet. What the FCC’s regulations on net neutrality would do are ensure that the Internet remains an open, non-discriminatory marketplace of ideas, rather than a pay-for-play system where broadband providers could make certain companies’ sites run faster if they’re willing to dole out large sums of money.

Net neutrality is essential to free speech, which both the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America have acknowledged. From a 2008 testimony by Michele Combs, the Christian Coalition’s vice president of communications:

Consequently, the reason the Christian Coalition supports Net Neutrality is simple. We believe that organizations such as the Christian Coalition should be able to continue to use the Internet to communicate with our members and with a worldwide audience without a phone or cable company snooping in on our communications and deciding whether to allow a particular communication to proceed, slow it down, or offer to speed it up if the author pays extra to be on the “fast lane.”

Free Press has put together a report here debunking some of the myths on net neutrality, and our Progress Report today has more information.

House Health Reform Bill Outlaws Treating Domestic Violence As A Pre-Existing Condition

This morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled the re-tooled Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962). The bill will cost $900 billion over 10 years, extending health coverage to 36 million Americans (6-7 million more than the Senate Finance Committee’s version). As Igor Volsky points out, it also “includes a national public option that reimburses physicians at negotiated rates and requires individuals to acquire coverage and large employers to provide it.”

A less-noticed — but still significant — part of the bill would ensure that insurers in the individual market would no longer treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition:

A health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual market may not, on the basis of domestic violence, impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A)) with respect to such coverage.

Eight states currently allow insurers to reject women who have survived domestic abuse for coverage. As the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim has explained:

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.

In human terms, it’s a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.

This provision is part of the bill’s larger ban on pre-existing conditions, which stipulates that insurers cannot discriminate based on “health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability, disability, or source of injury (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence) or any similar factors.”

In 2006, Senate Democrats on the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee tried to end domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, but lost in a 10-10 vote. All the “nay” votes were Republicans. Women currently pay up to 50 percent more for health insurance than a man would shell out for the same coverage, and most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care.

The inclusion of a ban on domestic violence being treated as a pre-existing condition fulfills a promise Pelosi made earlier this month. “Think of this,” Pelosi told reporters. “You’ve survived domestic violence, and now you are discriminated [against] in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition. Well, that will all be gone.”

‘Nativist Extremist’ Minuteman PAC Endorses Hoffman For Congress

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate for New York’s traditionally Republican 23rd District, has just won the right-wing support of the Minuteman Political Action Committee — the political action arm of a “nativist extremist” armed vigilante group. The Minuteman PAC is currently running Independent Expenditure radio spots and predicts that Hoffman is “positioned to win a landslide victory” over Republican Party nominee Dede Scozzafava.

The Minuteman PAC’s Hoffman ad claims Scozzafava and Democratic candidate Bill Owens are tied directly to “the left-wing social agenda”:

You already know about ACORN — the corrupt organization scamming your tax dollars to promote a radical left agenda. And you’ve seen videos where Acorn officials offer to help a teenage prostitution ring involving illegal aliens. Now blogger Michele Malkin exposes yet another Acorn scandal: subsidized mortgages for illegal aliens. Acorn must be stopped, but how?

Two candidates for Congress, Dede Scozzafava and Bill Owens, are tied directly to Acorn and their far left-wing socialist agenda. That’s why voters all over Central New York and the North country are backing Doug Hoffman for Congress. Doug Hoffman is a CPA — a solid conservative and the only candidate for Congress opposed to amnesty and government handouts for illegal aliens. And only Hoffman will stand up to Acorn and the liberals. The choice is clear: Doug Hoffman for Congress — the wake-up call politicians in both parties need now.

Listen here:

The Minuteman PAC proclaims that it’s “THE ONE Political Action Committee that the open-borders, pro-amnesty lobby fears most,” but has been widely criticized for hoarding money and spending only a small fraction of its funds on political candidates.

However, Hoffman’s website indicates that he’s actually opposed to putting up a wall to “stop all immigration.” “The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here,” says his immigration platform. Agriculture is one of central New York’s main industries and many farmers depend on migrant labor. The New York Farm Bureau has expressed “deep disappointment” in “the failure of Congress…to come up with an immigration reform measure that addresses the pressing labor needs of agriculture in New York and across the nation.”

Thune Offers Weak And Hypocritical Argument For Voting Against Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment

Earlier this month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill to withhold defense contracts from companies which “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” The amendment stemmed from a incident where Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers, then detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration. (Jones was not an isolated case.)

Although Franken’s amendment passed, it was opposed by 30 Republican Senators and by lobbyists of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Blogger-activist Mike Stark interviewed several of the GOP Senators who voted against the amendment, including Sen. John Thune (R-SD). Thune explained his vote by arguing that he was simply defending the sanctity of using binding arbitration to settle disputes between labor and management:

STARK: What it would have prevented, was the government from contracting with anyone who forces women who have been raped into arbitration instead of giving them their day in court. … It sounds to a lot of us that you sided with corporations over rape victims.

THUNE: It was clearly politically inspired amendment to make it appear that way. The issue has to do with whether or not arbitration is going to be something that continues to be a part of labor agreements.

STARK: Well this was narrowly defined to prevent arbitration in cases of rape.

THUNE: No, no it wasn’t. … It has to do with the broader issue about whether or not arbitration is going to be a tool available for labor and management to use when it comes to labor agreements.

Watch it:

While Thune is committed to the principle that corporations have the right to use binding arbitration to muzzle victims of rape, he has long argued against the use of arbitrators in regards to reforming how unions sign labor contracts. In fact, Thune has fashioned himself a chief opponent of the Employee Free Choice Act simply because of arbitration. Arbitration is a part of EFCA because, all too often, when employees vote to form a union, they still can’t get a first contract due to their employer’s delay tactics. However, Thune has argued that the most “egregious” provision of EFCA is arbitration. Arbitration to help unions form contracts with their employers, Thune argues, would “kill jobs” and hurt “every American business, both large and small.”

Thune’s only consistency here appears to be that he believes both union workers and rape victims don’t deserve justice.

State Rep: In Oklahoma, There’s A ‘Feeling That Women Aren’t Capable Of Making Reproductive Decisions’ »

Oklahoma recently passed a law that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Women will have to answer questions about their age, income, race, number of previous pregnancies, type of health insurance, whether they’re a state employee, date of abortion, and location where the procedure is performed. Although the questionnaire does not ask for name, address, or “any information specifically identifying the patient,” as Feminists for Choice points out, many of these questions could be used to identify a woman in a small community.

In recent weeks, the law has been generating attention nationwide. On Monday, ThinkProgress spoke to Oklahoma state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D), an outspoken opponent of HR 1595, which was sponsored by two male lawmakers — Sen. Todd Lamb (R) and Rep. Dan Sullivan (R). McDaniel stressed that this bill is part of a pattern by the Oklahoma legislature to take away power from women:

McDANIEL: I’ve served five sessions, and I have one more term to go before I’m up for reelection. Each of the successive five years, there has been a bill introduced in the Oklahoma legislature regarding women’s reproductive rights. … Each year, it creeps a little more toward taking away women’s freedoms, more restrictions between the doctors. [...]

TP: So how did this get passed?

McDANIEL: Well, in our state, we have a very strong feeling that women aren’t capable of making reproductive decisions when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. It’s a very strong effort pro-life. And while I don’t advocate abortion, certainly, I understand the Supreme Court gives us the right to have availability to that service, and I do believe that women have the right to make the choice and to make healthy choices.

In the interview, McDaniel stressed that not only is the bill trying to intimidate women from receiving reproductive care, but it’s intended to discourage doctors from providing the services in the first place. Physicians are required to fill out the survey — even if they work at a private institution — and if they don’t, they will face sanctions. “I think what we’re doing is we’re driving them out of the services completely to providing women’s health care,” said McDaniel. Listen to excerpts of the interview here:

One of the recent bills McDaniel mentioned that takes away women’s reproductive choices was legislation that would have required a woman to submit to an ultrasound and hear descriptions of the fetus’s heart, limbs, and internal organs before receiving an abortion. The law said that the woman would be allowed to “avert her eyes.” However, a judge struck down the law, saying it “violated a clause in the State Constitution requiring that bills deal with only one subject.” The Center for Reproductive Rights is now challenging the new abortion law on the same grounds. On Monday, the court postponed activation of the law until Dec. 4 as part of the legal challenge. The state attorney general had requested the delay in order to have “more time to respond.”

As Megan Carpentier notes, “Making abortion illegal or difficult to obtain doesn’t reduce its prevalence in a country. It simply increases the health risks to the women who seek them anyway. The only proven way to stop women from having abortions is to help them make their own choices about when to become pregnant.”

Unfortunately, if the court doesn’t overturn this law, there may not be a legislative fix coming anytime soon. McDaniel said that she’s sure there aren’t the votes right now to repeal the law right now. “I think it’s an education process, and I think the more educated a constituency is, or people in a state are, that they will realize that access to affordable reproductive health care is the key,” McDaniel replied.

Transcript: More »« Less