Think Progress

McCain On DADT: ‘I Will Be Glad To Listen To The Views Of Military Leaders’ »

In October 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to” and says the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy “ought to change,” he would “seriously” consider changing it. In an interview with the Washington Blade in 2008, he said he would “defer to our military commanders” on the issue.

But in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, McCain bristled when the Pentagon’s top military and civilian leaders, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced they were in favor of overturning the policy. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat,” said McCain.

In an interview on Bill Bennett’s radio show today, McCain claimed “the policy is working” and repeated his opposition to repealing, but claimed that he would “be glad to listen to the views of military leaders”:

MCCAIN: Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign.

Listen here:

On Fox News last night, McCain also said that he was hoping “to get the opinion from our military leadership,’ saying that “If they can show me the evidence that it needs to be changed, obviously, then I would give that serious consideration.” McCain says that he has “respect” for Mullen’s view, but he dismisses it as simply an “individual opinion.”

But McCain has previously said that the “individual opinion” of military leaders for whom he has “respect” influenced his views on military policy. In June 2009, he told Ana Marie Cox that he originally supported the policy because General Colin Powell had “strongly recommended” it and he hadn’t “heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position.” Powell released a statement yesterday saying he now opposes the continuation of DADT because “attitudes and circumstances have changed.”

So basically, McCain is willing to “listen” to military leaders on DADT — he’s just not going to let their expert opinions get in the way of what he already thinks.

Transcript: More »« Less

Obama Publicly Condemns Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Legislation: It Is An ‘Odious’ Bill

Uganda’s parliament is currently considering an anti-homosexuality bill that would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts, require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize renting property to gay men and women.

The measure has been widely condemned around the world, from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to federal lawmakers of both parties in the United States. The Obama administration has issued statements condemning the legislation and was working privately with Ugandan officials, but the President himself has not yet commented. In December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the Ugandan legislation, saying, “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.” She has also personally spoken to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni about the bill.

Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, both Clinton and Obama condemned the Ugandan legislation:

– CLINTON: And I recently called President Museveni, whom I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the parliament of Uganda.

– OBAMA: We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it’s here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.

Watch it:

Making these pronouncements today was significant because the Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, the controversial group also known as “The Family.” As author Jeff Sharlet has detailed, The Family has ties to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality legislation. The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on C-SPAN and government officials to turn their backs on today’s event.

Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a resolution condemning Uganda’s anti-gay bill. “The proposed Ugandan bill not only threatens human rights, it also reverses so many of the gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said Berman. The bill has 38 co-sponsors, but only one — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) — is a Republican.

DeMint Blocks A Wise Lesbian Latina From Serving On The D.C. Superior Court

President Obama’s judicial nominee facing the longest confirmation delay is Marisa Demeo, nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Superior Court. These judges are “usually approved by the Senate without generating controversy.” However, even though Obama nominated Demeo on March 24 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs endorsed her on May 20, she still has not won confirmation because Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is blocking her.

The National Law Journal (subscription required) reports that conservative objections seem to be based on her strong legal advocacy work on Hispanic and LGBT issues. Demeo has an accomplished legal career, working for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, as an assistant U.S. attorney, and most recently as a D.C. magistrate judge since 2007. She also was a lawyer and lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and as an openly gay woman, has been a member of the Human Rights Campaign and co-president of GAYLAW. From the National Law Journal:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who frequently delays Obama nominees, said he is holding up Demeo’s nomination in his role as chairman of the Senate Republican Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. “A number of Republicans had concerns and asked me, as chairman of Steering, to ask for limited debate and a recorded vote because of a history of very leftist activism,” he said.

DeMint said he had reviewed Demeo’s record as recently as Jan. 27 and found it unacceptable. Asked in a brief interview for specific criticisms, he said “it’s a lot more” than Demeo’s work for MALDEF but he declined to give details. “There are just a number of things that don’t look like a fair and balanced approach that you’d like in a judge,” he said. A spokesman for DeMint later declined to elaborate.

DeMint’s block on Demeo is incredibly hypocritical, considering what he said in 2005:

One of my goals as a Senator is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees no matter who is President, no matter which party is in the majority. That is my commitment, and I have encouraged Senator Frist to consider all options, including the constitutional option, to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct.

I would like to say something to my colleagues across the aisle. There is a reason George W. Bush was elected to serve as President of the United States. It is because the majority of Americans trusted him to nominate judges.

DeMint also opposed Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination for the Supreme Court, saying that he didn’t like her using the term “wise Latina” and was concerned that she wouldn’t be able to “decide cases based on the law and not her personal views.” During the confirmation process, the right wing equated Sotomayor’s affiliation with the National Council of La Raza with being a member of “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.”

Democrats have paired Demeo’s confirmation with that of Stuart Nash, who was first nominated by President Bush and received the Senate committee’s support in July. D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Lee Satterfield has said that if Demeo and Nash aren’t confirmed within months, there will be a dire situation” for the court. “[S]uch a scenario would certainly test our ability to administer justice for the people of the District of Columbia in a timely fashion,” said Satterfield.

– Research assistance provided by DJ Carella

Boehner Agrees With Progressives: Obama’s Spending Freeze Should Not Exclude Defense Spending

Since President Obama announced his intention to enact a “spending freeze” on non-security domestic discretionary spending in the federal budget, progressives have been calling on him to include the massive budgets of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. As CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence J. Korb has noted, these agencies “are responsible for a large and increasing share of the discretionary portion of the federal budget,” so by excluding them, “the president’s spending freeze will have a marginal effect.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has echoed this call. Korb has suggested that the White House has been reluctant to exclude these accounts out of “fear of appearing weak on defense.” However, yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) — who would likely be leading such attacks against Democrats — said that he agreed with progressives:

GREGORY: The question of spending and commonsense steps that could be taken, you heard David Axelrod say, “Look, the Republicans voted against paying as you go. They voted against a commission to control the debt.” They suggest a spending freeze, the president’s budget will. And Speaker Pelosi has said that should not exempt defense spending, it should include it. What do you say? Should the spending freeze be a good start but be expanded?

BOEHNER: I think the President’s proposal on freezing nonsecurity domestic spending is a good first step, but it’s only $15 billion for each of the next three years. I think we can do much better than that. I don’t think any agency of the federal government should be exempt from rooting out wasteful spending or unnecessary spending. And I, frankly, I would agree with it at the Pentagon. There’s got to be wasteful spending there, unnecessary spending there.

Watch it:

Korb has laid out nine reductions the Pentagon could take to cut spending. Yglesias notes that a significant amount of defense spending occupies “a middle ground between ‘waste’ and ‘defending our freedom,’” and will require a tough debate about U.S. priorities. (HT: Steve Benen)

Obama Reprimands GOP: Stop Saying ‘This Guy’s Doing All Kinds Of Crazy Stuff…To Destroy America’

This afternoon, during a conciliatory visit with the House Republicans, President Obama suggested that the party’s bitter political attacks prevented any possibility of negotiation or compromise on health care reform. “If you were to listen to the debate, and frankly how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this was some Bolshevik plot,” Obama said. He added:

If the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me. I mean, the fact of the matter is that many of you — if you voted with the administration on something — are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own Party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion. Because, what you’ve been telling your constituents is: this guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that is going to destroy America.

Watch it:

Obama described the health reform legislation as “a plan that is pretty centrist” and pointed out that it already incorporated modified versions of Republican proposals. He said that the legislation reflected the basic elements of a plan introduced in June of last year by a bipartisan group of former Senate Majority Leaders and reminded Republicans that they would have to negotiate with Democrats to incorporate their ideas into the final legislation. “Most independent observers would say” it is “similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton,” Obama added. In 1994, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole proposed alternatives that included an individual mandate, subsidies for lower income Americans and benefit standards “at least equal to those offered federal employees.”

Throughout the health care debate, House Republicans have resorted to sensational rhetoric and deceitful attacks. In July, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) said that “Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: Drop dead.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) predicted that “people die when they’re in line [for health care services],” and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) infamously said that the Democrats health care reform would “put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”

Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision

Last week, “all five of the [Supreme] Court’s conservatives joined together…to invalidate a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections,” a move that Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said “opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law” by big corporations. While progressives were outraged by the court’s judicial activism, many Republican politicians applauded the decision, with RNC Chairman Michael Steele even calling the ruling nothing more than “an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment.”

The progressive PR firm Murray Hill Inc. has announced that it plans to satirically run for Congress in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th congressional district to protest the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision. A press release on its website says that the company wants to “eliminate the middle man” and run for Congress directly, rather than influencing it with corporate dollars:

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” [...]

Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third. “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

Murray Hill Inc. released its first campaign video Monday. A narrator in the video explains, “The way we see it, corporate America has been the driving force behind Congress for years. But now it’s time we got behind the wheel ourselves.” Watch it:

Progressive Victory In Oregon: Voters Approve Tax Hikes On Corporations And The Wealthy To Close Budget Gap

As states around the country face budget crises, “deficit peacocks” continue to demand cutting social spending while ruling out tax increases on those who have benefited immensely from years of conservative policies. Oregon is one of the states that is faced with a budget crisis on the horizon. With a projected shortfall of $2.5 billion between 2009 and 2011, the state is on the verge of having to freeze salaries for public employees, end forest protection rules, and make deep cuts to education spending. Oregon’s deficit peacocks, of course, argued vigorously against considering any new taxes, arguing that harmful cuts to social spending were inevitable.

Oregon progressives, however, had a different idea. Pointing out that Oregon has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the nation — the corporate minimum income tax is a paltry $10 a year — and that Oregon’s wealthy have benefited enormously from years of conservative policies — they organized around two ballot initiatives, Measures 66 and 67, that would raise taxes on the upper-income tax bracket and corporations, which would protect $1 billion in services while not raising taxes on 97.5% of taxpayers and 93% of small business owners.

Corporate leaders formed front groups like Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes and flooded the airwaves with fear mongering ads about how small tax increases on the wealthiest Oregonians would harm the state. Unions, community organizations, and progressive businesses fought back with a grassroots campaign of their own in favor of the measures. Yesterday, Oregon’s voters went to the polls and “handily” passed both measures, marking the first time since 1930 Oregon voters had voted to increase taxes:

Backers of two Oregon tax increases say the easy victories Tuesday night are an indication of voter support for public services. Measure 66 will raise taxes on upper income households and Measure 67 will increase taxes on most businesses. Both measures passed by about 54-to-46 percent. [...]

The director of the Vote Yes campaign, Kevin Looper, says in the end, voters agreed. Kevin Looper: “This wasn’t about trying to soak the rich. This was about trying to protect the middle class. And it is the case that you have to ask those who can afford to, to pay a little more in order to do that. But these taxes were not a huge burden to be asking for those who can afford to, to cover. And I think most of them understood that.”

Following the passage of both measures, Oregon Republican Party Chairman Bob Tiernan was unable to cope with the fact that voters flatly rejected conservative free market fundamentalism, saying that the “success of a nationally-bankrolled campaign does not accurately reflect the views of all Oregonians. Voters across the state want their legislators to tighten their belts along with the rest of us.”

The truth is that Oregon is hardly alone when it comes to rejecting the right’s anti-tax philosophy. 29 states have “passed tax and fee increases totaling $24 billion this budget year, according to the National Governors Association, up from $1.5 billion a year earlier. ” Reflecting on the Oregon victory, Calitics notes, “What it also shows is that progressive policies, supported by smart progressive organizing led by folks such as former US Senate candidate Steve Novick and the Oregon Bus Project, which reached out to younger voters and had a strong ground game, can beat well-funded, well-organized corporate/teabagger alliances. ”

FLASHBACK: Obama Criticized Spending Freeze As ‘Using A Hatchet Where You Need A Scalpel’

The Obama administration has announced that in tomorrow’s State of the Union address, President Obama will call for a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending. The freeze — which will keep fiscal year 2012 and 2013 spending at the 2011 level — is designed to save $250 billion over ten years, and will “exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

So it seems that Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) estimate that “there’s a fighting chance” of Obama proposing a freeze has been proven correct. Of course, during the Presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed a similar spending freeze, which Obama repeatedly condemned as an “example of unfair burden sharing,” and “using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Here’s a compilation placed on YouTube yesterday of Obama scoffing at a spending freeze in all three presidential debates:

The administration’s contention is that, unlike McCain’s proposed freeze, this operates more like a spending cap, with some programs’ funding going up and others down. As Matthew Yglesias put it, Obama is “aiming for what you might call a ‘cut and invest’ strategy — slashing certain programs and boosting others. And I think anyone who looks at it would have to admit that there is, in fact, a lot of discretionary spending on programs of little value.”

But still, many economists have blasted the plan for its potentially anti-stimulative effects and its focus on spending that is not the root cause of the country’s long-term deficits. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that the freeze is “appalling on every level…shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.” Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said that the freeze “will make it impossible for [Obama] to do much of anything for the middle class that’s important.” U.C. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong added “this is a perfect example of fundamental unseriousness: rather than make proposals that will actually tackle the long-term deficit…come up with a proposal that does short-term harm to the economy without tackling the deficit in any serious and significant way.”

And at its core, Obama’s decision cedes to the right-wing both the idea that blanket cuts are necessary and the notion that cuts should be focused on domestic programs while defense spending goes untouched. And already, the right-wing is claiming the freeze as a victory, with the National Review’s Jim Geraghty writing, “if the arguments in the coming years are between spending freezes and spending cuts, then we’ve already won.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Santa Clarita Councilman Tells Anti-Immigrant Protesters: ‘I’m A Proud Racist’

Yesterday, The Los Angeles Daily News featured a video of Santa Clarita councilman Bob Kellar informing a group of cheering protesters rallying against immigration that he is a “proud racist” who considers being called a radical a “compliment”:

We have got to wake up America. I know you guys are engaged and you understand. But I’m telling you this is serious. And if I sound like a radical, thank you. I consider that a compliment…The only thing I heard back from a couple people was “Bob you sound like a racist.” I said, “That’s good. If that’s what you think I am because I happen to believe in America. I’m a proud racist. You’re darn right I am.”

Watch it:

Though Kellar insists his remarks weren’t intended to “express animosity towards non-whites,” local Democrats describe Kellar’s comments as “symbolic of the Republican Party’s attitudes toward immigration in general.” The rally was organized by several California anti-immigrant groups including the Santa Clarita Valley Independent Minutemen, the Santa Clarita Tea Party, and designated hate group Save Our State.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

King On Deporting Haitians: ‘Don’t Deport Them But Don’t Give Them Temporary Protective Status’

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months to the roughly 100,000 Haitians living illegally in the United States. The announcement was made after lawmakers from both parties called to grant the status that is available to a small number of federally-designated countries suffering armed conflicts, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances.

But not every lawmaker is satisfied with the decision. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called the measure “amnesty” last week, saying “illegal immigrants from Haiti have no reason to fear deportation, but if they are deported, Haiti is in great need of relief workers, and many of them could be a big help to their fellow Haitians.” On the Fred Thompson show yesterday, King appeared to walk back his deportation comments while still rejecting Temporary Protective Status:

KING: Well, the first thing that happened was we hadn’t even gotten through the after shocks and people were still crying out from under the rubble and the open borders amnesty crowd jumped on that and used the Rahm Emanuel axiom, which is never let a crisis go to waste. And it began to call for Temporary Protective Status for the illegal Haitians that are in the United States, which about thirty, thirty thousand of them have been processed for deportation but not sent. And maybe there’s another hundred thousand of them here. And my objection to that is that, first, the Department of Homeland Security suspend the deportations to Haiti. That is the proper thing. We can’t be sending people back into a chaotic atmosphere. By the same token, we don’t need to be knee jerking a decision that grants amnesty to people that have contempt for American laws. So, I say take a deep breath on that. Don’t deport them. But don’t give them Temporary Protective Status because those who are here illegally from Haiti if they get TPR, it’s almost an automatic green card, which is a path to citizenship. We shouldn’t award people who broke American laws because there’s a disaster in Haiti.

Listen here:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) attacked the extension of TPS yesterday as well, telling right-wing radio talker Laura Ingraham that it “has nothing to do with trying to help the people of Haiti during this tragedy. It looked like a convenient way to be compassionate.” Listen here:

As the Wonk Room’s Andrea Nill pointed out last week, “Allowing undocumented Haitians who are already living in the U.S. to legally work would help them earn the honest wages they need to send back money to their families and get their country back on its feet.” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) wrote on CNN last week that “it makes no sense to tell Haitians already here that they can stay in the U.S. in the wake of the earthquake, but cannot legally support themselves.”

GOP Claims It’s Upholding The Legacy Of MLK, A Fighter Against The ‘Injustice’ In Health Care Inequality

In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the Republican National Committee (RNC) put out a statement from chairman Michael Steele today honoring Dr. King’s “epic and historic fight for civil rights.” Yesterday, Sarah Palin also put up a Facebook message celebrating his “efforts against racial discrimination.” Both the RNC and Palin also tried to tie the conservative movement to King’s work:

RNC: “Though close to 50 years have come and gone since Dr. King delivered his ‘I Have A Dream’ speech, the principles by which he lived and worked remain as true as the day he began his epic and historic fight for civil rights. The principles of freedom, faith, and opportunity for all people are truly timeless and will continue to influence America and the world for generations to come. As we celebrate his legacy, I’m reminded that his message is rooted in ideals and principles that the Republican Party has advocated since its inception. Today, our Party and the nation honors Dr. King’s dream by continuing his fight — the fight for all Americans to have an equal chance at the American Dream.”

Palin: “Please take a moment to tell your children about this great man. He fought for liberty and equality because he knew they were God-given and he knew that no government should be empowered to thwart our freedom. King summarized his mission when stating that no one should be judged based on skin color, but by the content of one’s character.”

King is best remembered for his work fighting racial discrimination. But King’s vision for equality extended beyond integrated schools and businesses. He was also a fierce champion for the labor movement and living wage laws. Additionally, King believed that universal health care was essential to ensuring true equality in America. In a speech to the Medical Committee for Human Rights in 1966, King famously said:

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.

As the Kaiser Family Foundation has noted, the health reform bills being considered by Congress — which conservatives are opposing — would significantly benefit persons of color, who make up more than 50 percent of the uninsured (even though they comprise just one third of the U.S. population).

In September, Steele claimed that “Dr. King would be disappointed in the political leadership of this country for failing to address the least of us.” But as Richard Payne wrote in an April 2, 2006 op-ed in the Charlotte News and Observer, “Is there any doubt that King would have been on the forefront of arguments for payment of a living wage to the working poor, and that he would have advocated for universal health care?” Today in a speech at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in remembrance of King, Obama said of health reform legislation, “[U]nder the legislation I will sign into law, insurance companies won’t be able to drop you when you get sick, and more than 30 million people — our fellow Americans — will finally have insurance. … This will be a victory not for Democrats; this will be a victory for dignity and decency, for our common humanity. This will be a victory for the United States of America. “

Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit For The First Time In A Decade

Yesterday, for the first time in a decade, the Justice Department intervened in a gay rights suit. In August, an openly gay 14-year-old student named Jacob — with the help of the ACLU — sued the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York because officials “did not appropriately respond to relentless harassment, physical abuse and threats of violence” that Jacob received because of his sexual orientation. NPR reported on some of the harassment to which Jacob alleges he was subjected:

Long before Jacob came out of the closet at age 14, he was harassed for being effeminate. According to court papers, kids threw food at him and told him to get a sex change. One student pulled out a knife and threatened to string Jacob up the flagpole. A teacher allegedly told Jacob to “hate himself every day until he changed.”

One day, Jacob came home from school limping. That evening, he called his father from a party and said he had sprained his ankle at the party.

Sullivan described taking his son to the hospital: “It was a really bad sprain. They put a cast on it, gave him crutches. And shortly after that, I found out that it didn’t happen at the party. It happened at the school, because somebody had pushed him down the stairs.”

Over two years, Sullivan went to his son’s school three or four times a week to talk with the principal. According to court papers, officials did nothing.

The Justice Department is citing Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which protects people against gender discrimination — in its Motion to Intervene. However, the Obama administration is relying on a “broad reading” of Title IX, arguing that “the law also covers discrimination based on gender stereotypes.” In the Motion, the Justice Department argues that the Mohawk District officials also violated the Equal Protection Clause. On Jan. 7, the Assistant Attorney General authorized the federal government’s invention “by certifying that this is a case of general public importance.” Conservative lawyers are arguing against the Obama administration’s approach, saying that it is “making up a legal violation where there hasn’t been one.”

Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department has had a dramatically different focus than it did during President Bush’s terms. While the Bush Justice Department was focused on installing political cronies, going after mythical voter fraud cases, and the suppression of minority voters while looking out for the voter disenfranchisement of whites. The Obama Justice Department, by contrast, recently announced that it would also start aggressively going after “banks and mortgage brokers suspected of discriminating against minority applicants in lending.”

Poll: Majority Of Voters Don’t Believe DADT Is Helping The Military, Support Total Repeal Of The Ban

Today, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon is “stepping up internal discussions on how gay men and lesbians might be able to serve openly in the armed services” in anticipation that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) will be repealed. A small group — put together by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen to prepare for congressional hearings — recently met on the issue:

A one-page memorandum drafted by staff members as a discussion point for the meeting said that the chiefs could adopt the view that “now is not the time” because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the military would be better off delaying the start of the repeal process until 2011.

The same memorandum, according to a military official who has seen it, also said that “every indicator of opinion over the past 16 years shows movement toward nondiscrimination based on orientation” and that “in time the law will change.”

Indeed, recent polling confirms this indicator. ThinkProgress obtained results from a November poll on DADT conducted by Democracy Corps that shows likely voters support ending the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military by a 55 to 35 percent margin:

Pollsters Stan Greenberg and David Walker note that they “intentionally phrased this question using the most conservative language possible to avoid any suggestion of bias”; other surveys have shown even higher levels of support for repealing DADT. More from the results of likely voters:

– 53 percent of self-ascribed Republicans oppose lifting the ban. 71 percent of Democrats favor repeal, as do 58 percent of Independents.

– Only 11 percent believe that DADT makes the military stronger. 61 percent believe it makes no difference either way.

– 63 percent believe that a repeal of DADT should be implemented across the military all at the same time, rather than branch by branch.

– Catholic voters approve of repealing the ban in even higher numbers than the general public, with 64 percent in support and 29 percent in opposition.

In today’s White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to today’s New York Times story, saying, “[T]here have been discussions in the Pentagon — they will continue. We don’t have — I don’t yet have a time line out of those discussions. But I know they do continue.” In November, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said that a DADT repeal would “likely be included as part of next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress.” However, in a C-SPAN interview set to air Sunday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), who played a “major role” in crafting DADT, said that he opposes repealing the law.

Rep. King: Undocumented Haitians Should Be Deported Because Haiti Is In ‘Great Need Of Relief Workers’

Following the devastating earthquake in Haiti this week, many activists and politicians have heightened the cry for granting undocumented Haitians in the U.S. Temporary Protected Status (TPS). TPS is a longstanding cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy that is afforded to undocumented immigrants from a small number of federally designated countries suffering armed conflicts, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances until conditions improve. Many claim Haitians should’ve received TPS after four consecutive tropical cyclones in 2008 left 800 people dead, hundreds missing, and made the Haitian city of Gonaives “uninhabitable.”

However, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) seems to think that not only were undocumented Haitians undeserving of TPS status then, undocumented Haitians living in the U.S. should now be deported back to their country to specifically serve as much-needed relief workers. ABCNews reports:

“This sounds to me like open borders advocates exercising the Rahm Emanuel axiom: ‘Never let a crisis go to waste,’” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said in an e-mail message to ABCNews. “Illegal immigrants from Haiti have no reason to fear deportation but if they are deported, Haiti is in great need of relief workers and many of them could be a big help to their fellow Haitians.”

Members of King’s own party disagree. Though none of three GOP lawmakers is a co-sponsor of Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s (D-IL) comprehensive immigration reform bill, Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) have called on President Obama to grant TPS to undocumented Haitian immigrants, “a virtual lifeline for such an impoverished country.” Even the not too immigrant-friendly Mark Krikorian claims that TPS “was invented precisely for cases like Haiti today.” Dan Stein, director of the designated hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform, suggests coupling TPS for Haitians with the termination of TPS and the deportation of other nationals who he believes no longer “merit” it — an unusually generous recommendation for someone like Stein.

The Obama administration has agreed to halt the deportation of undocumented Haitians, though those currently held in detention centers will remain jailed unless TPS is granted. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) points out, that “it makes no sense to tell Haitians already here that they can stay in the U.S. in the wake of the earthquake, but cannot legally support themselves.”

More at Wonk Room.

Will Harold Ford Stand Up For Union Employees’ Jobs And Health Benefits Over Bank Bonuses?

Bank of America — which has been a recipient of up to $45 billion in government aid — paid out $3.3 billion in bonuses for 2008 performance and is expected to pay out bonuses “close to the levels of 2007” for performance in 2009. Meanwhile, the megabank brazenly laid off three dozen security guards from its New York City building last Thanksgiving, and stripped 130 of its guards’ families of health care coverage.

SEIU 32BJ — which represents the workers at Bank of America’s building — has sent a letter to possible Senate Democratic primary candidate Harold Ford, who is an executive at Bank of America in New York and one of the recipients of these bonuses, asking him to use his clout in the company to “ensure that the officers at your buildings are restored to their previous positions and have their full benefits restored“:

When you were a Congressman in Tennessee and running for Senate, you eloquently described the injustice of workers struggling to meet their basic needs while corporations generated record profits. [...]

Officers who protect your employees and who live in one of the country’s most expensive cities should not be struggling to support their families while executives make billions in bonuses. As you contemplate a run for the Senate, it is time to show your commitment to improve the quality of life for all New Yorkers—not just the Wall Street elite. I hope that you will help correct this problem at Bank of America and ensure that the officers at your buildings are restored to their previous positions and have their full benefits restored. [We] would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and/or other Bank of America representatives to discuss this further.

Reflecting on the SEIU letter, Open Left’s Adam Bink asks, “Will Harold Ford, Jr. speak out on behalf of SEIU 32BJ members and their families, and work to correct this problem? Or will he toe the Wall Street corporate line – the same line that pays millions in bonuses to executives while thumbing noses at those who protect them?”

Native-American GOP Congressman Calls Steele’s ‘Honest Injun’ Comments ‘Unacceptable’

On Monday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele attracted considerable attention for a controversial term he used on Fox News:

STEELE:Our platform is one of the best political documents that’s been written in the last 25 years. Honest Injun on that. It speaks to some core conservative principles on the value of family, faith, life, economics. Those principles don’t change.

Watch it:

Today, ThinkProgress received a statement from Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) in response to Steele’s remarks:

It’s unacceptable. And while I’m certain Chairman Steele didn’t intend it that way, it’s an offensive phrase in the Native American community.

Cole’s condemnation of Steele is significant, not only because he is a fellow Republican, but also because he is an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation and the only Native American serving in the House. Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, has also demanded that Steele apologize: “His insensitive comment undermines and threatens to reverse the progress we have made to correct those wrongs.”

Leeanne Root of Indian Country Today writes that a public apology from Steele — who has been blanketing the media to promote his book — is “well overdue.” “Steele’s use of this racist phrase — on a widely viewed national program, no less — disrespects a community that works hard to educate about the true history of the United States and wants to participate in its productive future,” she writes.

Dodd’s Retirement Injects New Urgency Into Effort To Rein In Wall Street

One question bouncing around news outlets today is what Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) retirement means for the regulatory reform effort. Does it make him more or less likely to compromise on key parts of the bill, including the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)?

It’s hard to discern whether Dodd’s retirement will lead him to give in on a host of issues (as one “gleeful” financial services lobbyist told Politico it would) or compel him to put “it all on the line to get what he wants, bipartisanship be damned.”

But one thing is for certain: Dodd’s retirement means that the regulatory reform effort needs to wrap up this year, as Dodd’s likliest successor as chairman is Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), a very bank-friendly Democrat who would almost certainly produce a worse product. And this point hasn’t escaped Republicans, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out:

At the same time, [Dodd's] decision gives Republicans the incentive to draw out the process until after next year’s elections when a more business-friendly Democrat could ascend to the banking panel’s chairmanship. Next in line on the committee is Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.), generally seen as more receptive to industry concerns.

According to Roll Call, “Senate Democrats said that no palace intrigue is expected to take place with the Banking panel” and that Johnson will take the gavel. So Republicans and the financial industry have ample motivation to gum up the works until Dodd is all the way out.

This same concern arose when it looked like Dodd might take the helm of the Senate HELP committee following the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Back then, Tim Fernholz wrote that “it would be bad news for regulatory reform if Johnson took over the [banking] committee; he’s received nearly a million dollars from the financial industry in the last 20 years.”

Johnson was the only Senate Democrat to vote against a credit card reform bill last year, and the banking industry has focused on him as one of the Democrats most likely to torpedo the CFPA. “No one is pro-industry today but he’s been historically very receptive,” said a top financial services lobbyist of Johnson. “He’s been sensitive to the impact of legislation on the financial service industry given the large number of jobs he represents.”

Even if Dodd gets a regulatory reform bill passed, as the investment research firm Concept Capital pointed out, Johnson’s chairmanship would likely result in other efforts to rein in banks going by the wayside. “His elevation to chairman should put to rest worries over interchange and interest rate caps,” the firm wrote.

There is one note of good news amidst all this, however: Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will be running for Dodd’s seat, and he has been a strong advocate for consumer financial protection.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Obama Establishes Copenhagen Accord, But We’re Not Done Yet

Shortly before leaving Copenhagen yesterday, President Obama announced that he had succeeded in finalizing the text of an interim political agreement, the Copenhagen Accord, with the cooperation of a surprising array of parties from the developing world, including leaders from Brazil, South Africa, India, and China. This is a first step toward finishing a new internationally ratifiable agreement on climate change, which leaders hope will happen as soon as possible in 2010.

Most significantly, the accord — which has been recognized but not fully accepted by all nations — will launch a new Copenhagen Green Climate Fund next year, providing international financing to reduce deforestation and global warming impacts in vulnerable nations. The accord also marks the first time that the major polluters in the developing world, like India and China, have formally recognized they must commit to reducing global warming emissions.

Although this marks the first progress in the right direction on the international stage after eight long years of inaction under President Bush, much more must be done to stem the harm climate change has already done and to reduce the risk of catastrophic impacts in the future with a “fair, ambitious and legally binding deal,” starting with passage of strong climate legislation by the U.S. Congress. International environmental and human rights organizations agree that we’re “not done yet“:

Millions around the world look to the future and see hope, justice, and opportunity. It is up to each of us to make our voices heard and to get the real deal that the world needs. The world’s leaders still have a chance to get it right. They must realize that we expect, and will not accept, anything less. They’re not done yet. Neither are we.

Read the Wonk Room’s full coverage from Copenhagen here.

Greenpeace Protesters Declare U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Headquarters A ‘Climate Crime Scene’

As ThinkProgress has documented, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been standing in the way of bold and ambitious action to mitigate the effects of climate change. The business federation has repeatedly questioned the science of global warming and opposed cap and trade, causing numerous companies to leave the organization.

Today, protesters from the environmental justice group Greenpeace declared the Chamber headquarters in Washington, D.C. a “climate crime scene.” As protesters scaled the Chamber’s building, draping it in yellow crime scene tape, Greenpeace vehicles designed to look like police units and ambulances marked “Climate Crime Unit” surrounded the building and blared their sirens. Watch a video of the event:

“We welcome constructive discourse on the serious challenge of climate change,” Tita Freeman, the Chamber’s vice president for communication, told Politics Daily. “Now is the time to stop absurd stunts that are a distraction from real solutions and diminish the importance of this issue.” Of course, if that is the Chamber’s goal, it could stop funding global warming denier groups and accep the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is a very real and serious problem that must be addressed through government regulation of carbon emissions.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis Slams Down Right-Wing Call For An Immigration Moratorium

Last week, Politico featured a piece by right-wing pundit Pat Buchanan suggesting that rather than talking about a second stimulus package, tax credits, or public works projects, lawmakers should be seriously considering an immigration moratorium during these hard economic times. A few days later, former Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) authored an op-ed calling for a moratorium on legal immigration until “Americans are back on their feet.” ThinkProgress sat down with Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary Hilda Solis yesterday to discuss what a ban on immigration, coupled with ramped up deportations, could mean for the U.S. as a whole:

I think we’d have a big shortage of workers out there and I think as we move through this decade, we’re going to see people retiring from different types of jobs…so who is going to help fill those positions?

You would probably see towns shutting down, communities shutting down. You’d see second and third industries being affected – restaurant industries, service sectors industries where immigrants tend to work and be found. It would also impact the current ability to put food on your table because if you don’t have a certain number of people out there doing jobs that others wouldn’t want to do, then how are we going to provide the sustenance we need for all our American families?

Watch it:

What Buchanan, Goode, and all the others advocating an immigration moratorium fail to note is that, because of the recession, both legal and undocumented immigration are at record lows. And while it’s true that many immigrants work side-by-side American workers, that doesn’t serve as credible evidence that there is a significant number of American workers who have pursued those jobs and lost a job opportunity to an immigrant. In fact, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), has found that “despite the controversy it generates, illegal immigration has no significant impact on the overall U.S. economy.” MPI has also pointed out that, as of November 2009, immigrants are facing higher unemployment rates than American-born workers due to the fact that they are more likely to work in sectors that rise and fall with the business cycle.

As Solis points out, immigration policies should also take into account the future needs of an aging population. University of Southern California professor Dowell Myers recently pointed out that “as baby boomers become seniors, immigrants can fill the roles vacated by boomers shifting modes within the economy.” If the U.S. cuts future immigration, it could be in for a rude awakening when the recession is finally over. In an event at the Center for American Progress yesterday, Solis and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said today that comprehensive immigration reform would do a better job of strengthening the U.S. economy by improving pay, benefits, and working condition for all workers, along with adding billions of new tax dollars to the nation’s coffers.

Unemployment probably isn’t Goode and Buchanan’s only concern. In 2006, Buchanan called for an immigration moratorium to preserve the dominance of the white race in America. “If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built,” wrote Buchanan. That same year, Goode also warned that “we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.