ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Climate speech, part 3: John McCain loves big government

big-gov.jpgSen. McCain believes in much bigger government than I do. Who knew?

I don’t mean his endorsement of France’s nuclear strategy — although it is going to take a lot of government subsidies and mandates to get this country to build trillions of dollars worth of new nuclear plants by 2050, and McCain would have to force several states to build Yucca mountains-type storage sites (see “here“). Nor do I mean his embrace of a cap & trade that will subject most sectors of the economy to carbon regulations.

To a minor extent, I mean his embrace of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic offsets that will be “certified, measured, and verifiable” — since that will get the government in the business of measuring and monitoring everything else in the economy that isn’t in the cap, since offsets are, by McCain’s own definition, “credits for reductions made from sectors of the economy outside the trading system.”

But primarily he is a big government conservative because he loves adaptation, maybe more than he loves prevention, since his climate plan certainly won’t avert catastrophe. Adaptatation requires very big government — much bigger government than prevention does.

BIG GOVERNMENT ADAPTATION

In his speech (here), McCain spells out just the very beginnings of big government adaptation:

Read more

Politics

Moore making ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ sequel.

Variety reports that Michael Moore is making a sequel to “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which was a “scathing indictment of George W. Bush’s war on terrorism and a hit at the worldwide box office.” The new film will reportedly pick up where “Fahrenheit” left off: “In the time since, President Bush’s popularity has plummeted, while the Iraq war continues and the economy falters.”

Climate Progress

Senators Demand Answers On EPA Ouster Of Mary Gade

As first reported by the Chicago Tribune, Mary Gade resigned from her position as the Midwest regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on May 1 amid an ongoing dispute with Dow Chemical over dioxin pollution from its Midland, Michigan headquarters. Gade told the Tribune that “There’s no question this is about Dow.”

The Wonk Room has extensively reported on her resignation and compared it to the politicized firings of U.S. Attorneys under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Today, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson:

We are writing to request from you full information of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Gade’s departure. As you know, Congress and the American people expect EPA to enforce vigorously our public health protections — and to preserve the integrity of the enforcement program by excluding politics from such activities. We are troubled by reports suggesting that there was a link between her efforts to assure an aggressive cleanup by Dow and her allegedly forced departure, and are seeking answers from you to key questions.

Boxer and Whitehouse serve on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and have oversight of the EPA. They have requested answers to their questions and all related documents “no later than May 27, 2008.”

Administrator Johnson, now mired in scandal, has refused to appear before Congress for over a month. In April he went to Australia. Upon his return he found himself unable to testify, due to “ongoing back issues.”

The EPA currently is refusing to honor multiple subpoenas for other documents.

Read the full letter below:
Read more

Politics

Too Close for Comfort

If I’m working at the NSCC, I’m not liking these poll results out of North Carolina and Texas one bit. One assumes the GOP will pull both of these out in the end, but you’ve got to spend money defending your incumbents, and you really don’t want to be spending money on what ought to be safe Republican seats where conservative legislators untainted by any incredibly shocking scandals are just running for re-election.

Security

Charges Dropped Against ‘Dangerous’ Detainee Who Was Tortured At Guantanamo

The AP reports today that the Pentagon has “dropped charges” against Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 who was alleged to have been the so-called “20th hijacker” on 9/11.

Known as Detainee 063, Qahtani was the subject of a 2002 meeting at Guantanamo that included former Bush lawyer Alberto Gonzales, Cheney’s lawyer David Addington, and former Rumsfeld lawyer Jim Haynes. The trio approved the interrogations at Guantanamo, with Donald Rumsfeld then authorizing the “First Special Interrogation Plan” specifically for Qahtani. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) noted that these methods included:

[F]orty-eight days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory overstimulation, and threats with military dogs. The aggressive techniques, standing alone and in combination, resulted in severe physical and mental pain and suffering.

“This is a very dangerous individual who has provided us with valuable intelligence,” claimed former White House press secretary Scott McClellan in 2005. But as Marcy Wheeler notes, the dismissal raises questions about the credibility of torture-based evidence.

Renowned international lawyer Philippe Sands, who has extensively studied Qahtani, talked to PBS’s Bill Moyers about the interrogations of Qahtani on Friday. “And the bottom line of it was, contrary to what the administration said, they got nothing out of him,” Sands explained. Watch it:

In 2006, Qahtani recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured. In fact, “Qahtani never made a single statement that was not extracted through torture or the threat of torture,” CCR notes.

Records of the interrogations of Qahtani, however, were “mysteriously lost.” Cameras that “run 24 hours a day at the prison were set to automatically record over their contents,” the Guardian reported last month.

Politics

The inside scoop on Sunday show guests.

TVWeek recently interviewed producers, bookers, and moderators of the Sunday morning news talk shows and found out what they really think of their political guests. Some highlights:

THE HARDEST TO GET

Leading vote-getter: Vice President Dick Cheney. “He doesn’t give a s***. He’s checked out,” said one respondent. “I don’t know what he does all day,” said another.

DOESN’T MAKE THE NEWS THEY PROBABLY SHOULD

Leading vote-getter: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “never says anything.” “Everybody got really tired of the spin.”

A veteran newsmaker also commented that Rice is lying so low, “She’s under the rug in the living room.” Among the presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) are considered the “biggest gets,” and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is reportedly “great in a green room.” (HT: Jossip)

Politics

Obama’s Jewish Problem

He doesn’t actually seem to have one when pitted against John McCain. Rather, Jewish Americans like Clinton best, Obama second-best, and McCain least. Keep this in mind next time you read an argument that seems to assume that white working class Clinton supporters would prefer McCain to Obama — it’s perfectly possible for Obama to be someone’s second-choice, just as Clinton is the second choice of millions of Obama voters.

Politics

Feith Blames Public For Feeling Misled About Iraq: ‘I Think They Misremember A Lot’

Last night, Iraq war architect Douglas Feith appeared on The Daily Show to discuss his war apologia, War and Decision. When Stewart said that many Americans feel the Bush administration misled them into war, Feith replied, “Errors are not lies. I think a lot of what the Administration said was correct.”

Feith insisted that the entire administration conducted a “serious consideration of the very great risks of war.” When Stewart reminded Feith that those risks were never presented to the public, Feith said he was wrong, and that people who felt that way simply “misremembered” the run-up to war:

STEWART: If you knew the perils, but the conversation that you had with the public painted a rosier picture, how is that not deception? The fact that you seemed to know all the risks takes this from manslaughter to homicide. [...]

FEITH: When people read this book, I think people will be surprised to be reminded of what was actually said. I think a lot of people’s perceptions of what was said are filtered through the recent history. … I think they misremember a lot.

Watch it:

It’s Feith’s memory, not Americans’, that is faulty here. In January, a Center for Public Integrity study documented the more than 930 false statements made by the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Feith has shut his eyes to the evidence for months, laughably claiming that the administration never said the war would be easy, even though the White House frequently — and famouslypeddled just that notion.

As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss puts it, “Doug Feith is only small part of a bigger story, an ideologically hidebound bureaucrat condemned to spend the rest of his life frantically and fruitlessly arguing against history’s overwhelmingly clear verdict on his incompetence and mendacity.”

Yglesias

Less Talk, More Investment

Lately, I’ve been noticing that there’s a weird ideological element to debates over whether the current run-up in oil prices is driven primarily by speculation or primarily by the fundamentals. Why, I wondered, would it break down like that? Now that I’ve read it, I think Paul Krugman nailed it yesterday: If oil prices continue to rise, we’ll probably see more call for government intervention in public transit and energy efficiency, and “I don’t find that vision particularly abhorrent, but a lot of people, especially on the right, do. And so they want to believe that if only Goldman Sachs would stop having such a negative attitude, we’d quickly return to the good old days of abundant oil.”

Of course you can run this argument backwards — I prefer walkable, transit-oriented places so I’d like it to be the case that objective reality is trending in a manner that will make more people share my preferences. That said, Krugman’s argument (and Kevin Drum’s argument here) seems fairly persuasive to me.

But that said, the right way to resolve this dispute isn’t with punditry, it’s with speculative investments. A person who really thinks he has reason to believe we’re in the midst of an oil bubble could earn a lot of money off that belief. Seeing conservative institutions deciding to invest funds in selling oil short would be more persuasive than any number of arguments.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up