ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Judge rules against Bush administration in White House email case.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy ruled today that two private groups — CREW and the National Security Archive — may continue to pursue their case against the Bush White House to recover millions of possibly missing electronic messages. “The Bush administration had argued that the courts did not have the power to order the White House to retrieve any missing e-mails.”

Update

“This is a major victory for the public interest in accountability at the White House,” added Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs. “Through this lawsuit we have preserved over 65,000 computer backup tapes. This decision means those tapes will survive the end of the Bush Administration so that Congress, the courts, and eventually the public will be able to learn about the decision-making that took place over the last 8 years.”

Yglesias

People Not Vehicles

bus_1.jpg

It seems that the goal of the Maryland State Highway Administration “is to get the most vehicles through the area in the most predictable way possible.” You often see transportation departments using metrics of this sort to evaluate different ideas. And it sounds at first glance a bit like common sense. But as Dave Alpert points out a small change in wording can make a big difference:

Even pedestrians aside, the goal should be to get the most people through the area, not the most vehicles. It’s an important distinction, since one bus carries as many people as a whole lane of cars.

Indeed. If you take a big, heavily trafficked urban thoroughfare — say a boulevard with three lanes in each direction that features a somewhat frequent, fairly popular bus line — and change it to two lanes of traffic in each direction, you’ll reduce the number of vehicles but possibly increase the number of people. The dedicates bus lane will speed the buses up. And since the buses now move faster, the exact same number of buses and bus drivers will be able to service the route on a more frequent schedule, since they’ll reach the turnaround points quicker. This would make the bus service into a more attractive option and if more people take the new, faster bus the increased fare revenue could support a further increase in the number of buses and drivers serving the route.

That all would, in turn, somewhat reduce the number of cars driving the route as some people switch away from the now-less-desirable driving option and onto the now-more-desirable bus option. That reduction in car volume would, in turn, somewhat counteract the increased congestion associated with the decrease in the number of lanes. A new equilibrium would eventually be reached. To estimate whether the new equilibrium would move people faster or slower than the old equilibrium would be a bit complicated and depend on various factors, estimates, etc. But if you’re considering making the switch, that would be the right thing to consider — the impact on the volume of people, not the impact on the volume of vehicles.

Beyond that, a transportation agency should probably take a somewhat broader view of its mandate and also think about things like the impact on the environment and economic development. But, at a minimum, when looking at transportation qua transportation you should be looking at the transportation of individuals rather than the transportation of conveyances. The essence of traffic congestion is that certain kinds of space are at a premium, so ignoring the fact that different modes of move people involving taking up more or less space means you’re missing a big piece of the puzzle.

Politics

New lawsuit alleges businessman originally tried to steer money directly to Coleman.

coleman-chair.jpgA recent lawsuit alleged that Nasser Kazeminy, a close friend of Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), used his business DMT to funnel $75,000 to Coleman’s wife’s insurance firm. A new lawsuit, however, claims that Kazeminy originally tried to steer the money directly to Coleman, Politico reports:

[T]he second lawsuit alleges — and it’s breathtakingly stupid if true — that Kazeminy at first ordered DMT execs to pay Coleman directly.

Our clients were advised that Mr. Kazeminy first sought to have DMT make quarterly cash payments of $25,000 to Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota,” writes plaintiff’s attorney Anthony Paduano, citing a “confidential” informant.

What’s more, this latest suit reveals that the payments to Coleman’s wife’s firm were hardly for insurance purposes, “because DMT, which services offshore oil platforms and port facilities, already used Aon for its insurance.”

Economy

If It Happens, The Auto Industry Bailout Needs To Be Done Right

automakers2.jpgThere seems to be a growing consensus in Washington that the federal government needs to bail out America’s auto industry. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in a letter sent Saturday, “formally requested that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson consider giving ‘temporary assistance to the auto industry‘ using money originally appropriated to shore up the banking system.”

President-elect Barack Obama also supports this position. During an appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation, Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that “there are existing authorities within the government today that the administration should tap to help the auto industry.”

If the auto industry bailout occurs, two things need to happen. First, it needs to have much stronger oversight than the bank bailout did. As CQ noted, “reports continue to circulate about the banks potentially hoarding portions of the $250 billion Treasury has offered to invest in exchange for senior preferred stock, or using the money for purposes other than lending.” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) pointed out, “That was never the intent; that’s an abusive use of taxpayer money.”

More importantly though – as Pelosi and Reid said – “federal aid should come with ‘strong conditions,’ such as requirements that car makers build more fuel-efficient vehicles.” Bill Scher at OurFuture writes, “With the auto industry in dire straits, we taxpayers have maximum leverage to demand the cars necessary to help lower energy costs, cut carbon emissions and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.”

As John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund – who is currently on leave to head the Obama transition – said on CNN’s Late Edition:

I think we’ve got to stabilize the current situation, but we also have to build for a stable long-term path so that they’re producing the kinds of efficient vehicles that we need in this country.

Podesta added that “the auto industry directly employs about 250,000 people and if you think about the ripple effects, they are the backbone of our manufacturing economy.” Indeed, according to estimates, one in 12 U.S. jobs is tied to car manufacturing, and a bailout of the industry could help boost the U.S.’s ailing manufacturing sector.

In a statement, Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said that the auto industry, if rescued, “will be on the leading edge of the new energy economy“:

Our engineers and designers continue working toward the next technology breakthroughs that will even further reduce oil dependence and carbon dioxide emissions. Our work toward meeting a national solution could create the biggest wave of ‘green jobs’ our nation has seen.

This is a promise that the next administration and Congress need to ensure the auto industry keeps.

Politics

MSNBC extends Olbermann’s contract.

TV Decoder reports:

olbermannflag1.jpg Keith Olbermann, the anchor of “Countdown,” will remain at MSNBC through the next presidential election season, the cable news channel announced Monday afternoon.

The announcement came less than two years into Mr. Olbermann’s current four-year deal. MSNBC essentially tore up his February 2007 contract (reported to be worth up to $4 million a year) and wrote a new one, according to two employees with knowledge of the agreement. The new contract is valued at about $7.5 million a year, one of the people said.

Mr. Olbermann will continue to anchor “Countdown” and co-host NBC’s “Football Night in America.” Reinforcing Mr. Olbermann’s value to MSNBC, the network said he would “play a prominent role” in “all major news events.”

Appearing on the View today, Olbermann admitted that he didn’t vote last week.

Politics

Dean to step down as DNC chair.

dean.jpgDNC Chairman Howard Dean is preparing to step down from his position when his term ends in January, Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports today. According to Stein, a name being floated as Dean’s successor is Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who was an ardent supporter of President-elect Barack Obama:

In sheer political terms, the choice really wasn’t Dean’s to make. Indeed, any decision on who will serve as the next DNC chair will come with directives from Obama and his aides. And a name being floated around as a possible Dean replacement is one of the president-elect’s closest allies: Claire McCaskill, the junior Senator from Missouri and a national co-chair of the Obama campaign.

Media

Howell: No Matter How Bad McCain Is, Our Opinion Pages Must Pretend He’s Great

Washington Post ombudswoman Deborah Howell calls for less intellectual honesty on the Post‘s opinion pages:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

This is pretty absurd. Some institutions try to put forward a fairly consistent ideological point of view. It’s clear that The Washington Post op-ed section tries to do no such thing. Instead, its columnists represent a range of views. And it’s surely to the Post‘s credit that when George Will, one of their conservative columnists, found himself not-so-psyched about John McCain and his campaign that he said so. Similarly, Anne Applebaum is a Post columnist who’s hard to classify but might at one point have been thought likely to be enthusiastic about John McCain. But she didn’t like the direction he and his campaign took, so she wrote a column laying out her thinking:

Yesterday, while reading the latest polling data on John McCain, Sarah Palin and their appeal — or growing lack of it — to ” independent women voters” it suddenly dawned on me: I am one of these elusive independent female voters, and I have the credentials to prove it. For the past couple of decades, I’ve sometimes voted Democratic, sometimes Republican. I’m even a registered independent, though I did think of switching to vote for John McCain in 2000. But because the last political party I truly felt comfortable with was Thatcher’s Conservative Party (I lived in England in the 1980s and 1990s), I didn’t actually do it.

The larger point, though, is that if I’m not voting for McCain — and, after a long struggle, I’ve realized that I can’t — maybe it’s worth explaining why, for I suspect there are other independent voters who feel the same. Particularly because it’s not his campaign, disjointed though that has been, that finally repulses me: It’s his rapidly deteriorating, increasingly anti-intellectual, no longer even recognizably conservative Republican Party. His problems are not technical; they do not have to do with ads, fundraising or tactics, as some have suggested. They are institutional; they have to do with his colleagues, advisers and supporters.

Presumably, this sort of thing is what an ideologically diverse op-ed page is supposed to be doing. The fact that the Post‘s liberals were more enthusiastic about Obama than the conservatives were about McCain reflected an enthusiasm gap that existed in the country. The fact that a centrist Post columnist like Applebaum had a lot of nice things to say about McCain the man and McCain the maverick but ultimately didn’t like the 2008 vintage McCain reflected the fact that McCain was extremely popular with independents and moderates at one time, but became less popular as he re-remade himself into a more orthodox conservative. Similarly, that a neocon like Charles Krauthemmer liked McCain more than did a traditionalist conservative like Will reflected reality on the ground.

What should the Post have done? Told Applebaum that to maintain balance she had to vote for McCain? Told Will he was going to get fired unless he joined Krauthammer in becoming a McCain enthusiast? That would have been bizarre

Health

Obama Supports Condoms: Plans To Overturn Global Gag Rule

condoms4.JPG

Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama are indicating that “Obama will reverse U.S. family planning and AIDS prevention strategies that have long linked global funding to anti-abortion and abstinence education.”

The Obama reversal is a return to an approach that is based on solid evidence and public health rather than ideology, and a recognition of needs on the ground rather than the need to please domestic political constituencies.

On January 21 2001, President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy (the global gag rule), requiring NGOs receiving federal funding to refrain from using their own money to perform or promote abortion services in other countries.

While the policy was “purportedly designed to reduce abortion by limiting a woman’s access to abortion services, and to ensure that U.S. funding for family planning services overseas is completely separate from abortion activities,” in actuality the rule has denied “many NGOs access to in-kind donations of the very contraceptives that can prevent recourse to abortions“:

- Desperately needed USAID-supplied contraceptives are no longer being shipped to 16 developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

- The leading providers of family planning in 13 other developing nations are also no longer receiving USAID contraceptives.

- By 2002, the Global Gag Rule had resulted in the loss of USAID-donated contraceptives including condoms (purchased with family planning funds), to NGOs in 29 countries

Placing ideology ahead of science or reason, Bush fundamentally misunderstood the root of the problem. The rise of HIV infections in girls is attributed not to women’s individual choices and behavior, but to gender inequalities and sexual violence, including the widespread practice and acceptance of child marriage of young girls to older men, forced marriage and polygamy, male promiscuity, “marital rape, domestic violence, wife inheritance, widow cleansing, and female genital mutilation.”

Obama seems to understand a reality that Bush chose to ignore, if only selectively, for the Bush administration admits to the effectiveness of condoms domestically but limits their provision in countries battling HIV/AIDS epidemics. Just today, for instance, the Bush FDA acknowledged in a new rule amending the classification regulation for condoms:

That evidence supports the conclusions that correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of transmission of HIV/AIDS and other STIs such as gonorrhea that are sexually transmitted solely by contact with the head of the penis (via genital fluids).

Politics

Hitting Back At Obama Team, Perino Insists Bush Did Not Ban Stem Cell Research

On Fox News Sunday yesterday, John Podesta, President-elect Barack Obama’s transition chief, said Obama would move swiftly to overturn a range of executive orders by President Bush, “whether that’s on energy transformation, on improving health care, on stem cell research.” Podesta explained, “I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country.”

Asked about it during today’s press briefing, Dana Perino defended Bush’s stem cell policy and insisted that Bush had never, in fact, banned stem cell research:

Unfortunately, the president’s position on stem cells has been misconstrued over the years, with the suggestion that President Bush put a ban on research for embryonic stem cell research. That is not true. … The President made a very important choice after a lot of careful deliberation.

Watch it:

It’s technically true that Bush did not ban stem cell research — he just strictly limited funding of it. Vetoing bipartisan legislation that even ardent pro-life conservative Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) supported, Bush arbitrarily limited funding to research of just 60 stem cell lines cultivated before Aug. 9, 2001. The number eventually shrank to a dismal 21 after some lines were found to have been contaminated or retrieved unethically. The limits make scientists’ work more difficult and less effective, and — since the thousands of embryos not implanted in women are eventually destroyed — don’t even save the embryos Bush considers to be “human life.”

Despite Perino’s attempt to blame the media for “misconstruing” Bush’s policy, even his own scientists agree that his research limits are profoundly harmful:

Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Bush’s former Director of the National Institute of Health: “American science will be better served — and the nation will be better served — if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines that they can study with the different methods that have emerged since 2001.”

Story Landis, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: “We are missing out on possible breakthroughs,” she told Congress, adding that the ability to work on newly derived stem cell colonies — currently precluded from federal funding — “would be incredibly important.”

Perhaps if Bush got his ideas from scientists rather than science-fiction novels, American stem cell research would be on the path to curing diseases.

Media

Fair and Balanced

rush_limbaugh_mugshot_1.jpg

Yesterday, Faiz Shakir flagged an LA Times inquiry into the massive dishonesty of Rush Limbaugh. The piece, by James Rainey, is quite strong but I didn’t like the lede:

You have to give Rush Limbaugh a perverse kind of credit. At least when he is demonizing Barack Obama, fabricating Obama policies, blaming Obama for single-handedly causing the recession and the stock market crash, he doesn’t pretend to be fair.

What Limbaugh doesn’t pretend to do is to be even-handed. His show is clear where it stands, on the conservative side. This blog, similarly, doesn’t apologize that it’s fighting for progressive policies and ideas. But at the same time, I try to be fair. I’m not going to peddle a damaging story about a person whose policy ideas I disagree with if I think the story is false. I’m not going to say Jonah Goldberg is secretly a fascist. I’m not going to claim that John Boehner wants to feed atheists to lions. That would be unfair. The whole point of Rainey’s article is that Limbaugh isn’t just right-wing — he’s inaccurate and dishonest. But he certainly does pretend that he’s both honest and accurate. He’s pretending to be fair. He just isn’t.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up