ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Bayer and Johnson & Johnson respond to your emails.

In response to our Stop Supporting The O’Reilly Harassment Machine campaign, we recently received statements from two of O’Reilly’s key advertisers. Johnson & Johnson told us:

With the help of our advertising agencies, a conscientious effort is made to screen all programs prior to broadcast. As a result of our screening, we have frequently withdrawn ads from television shows in the past and we will continue to monitor programming in the same manner in the future.

Your concern will be directed to network personnel. However, the most effective comment on programming is direct action by viewers. Therefore, we would urge you to communicate your feelings directly to the network.

Similarly, Bayer told us: “While there may always be reasonable differences over what constitutes acceptable programming, we do try to exercise good judgment in selecting networks on which to advertise.” We understand companies may choose to advertise on The O’Reilly Factor to reach its large audience. However, doing so should not mean that advertisers forsake their right to criticize Bill O’Reilly’s harassment tactics.

Yglesias

Banquo’s Ghosts

banquosghosts_1.jpg

Reader F.W. writes to draw my attention to Rich Lowry’s spy thriller Banquo’s Ghosts commenting “apparently he managed to pack every imaginable vapid right-wing cliché into his “forthcoming literary masterpiece”:

Lowry: Here’s the basic plot: Peter Johnson is a left-wing journalist who writes for a New York-based publication called The Crusader. He’s a lush, a cynic, and a little corrupt. But watching the 9/11 attacks from his Brooklyn Heights apartment changes something in him. He begins to have doubts about the “hate America” pieces his editrix, Josephine von Hildebrand, constantly assigns him. Meanwhile, an old forgotten CIA spymaster, Stewart Bancroft (he works under cover of the name Banquo), has an eye on him. Banquo is old school. He’s been marginalized in the new overly bureaucratic, politically correct CIA, as an anachronism who believes in aggressively and imaginatively taking the fight to the enemy. He concludes that the best possible man to send to kill Iran’s top nuclear scientist is the one no one would suspect–the unreliable, famously America-hating Peter Johnson. And then, as they say, mayhem ensues.

In Lowry’s defense, the idea of Christopher Hitchens reacting to 9/11 not by abandoning his Nation column in favor of a Slate column, but instead by becoming an assassin is pretty amusing.

Also there are tons and tons of vapid right-wing clichés that aren’t involved in this plot sketch. My recollection of the Tom Clancy book in which Jack Ryan becomes President is that not only does he do a bunch of right-wing national security stuff, but he also implements common sense domestic policy solutions like a flat tax.

Politics

Coulter Falls For Fake Obama NASCAR Story That Limbaugh Said No One Would Believe

coulter.jpgAs an April Fool’s joke, Car and Driver magazine posted a made-up story on its website claiming that “President Obama had ordered Chevrolet and Dodge out of NASCAR after the 2009 season.” The magazine “pulled the fake story” after it “turned into a sizzling Internet topic,” especially on anti-Obama right-wing websites.

As Media Matters notes, one person who took the joking claim seriously was Ann Coulter. In her Human Events column yesterday, Coulter wrote:

If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an “unnecessary expenditure,” isn’t having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan “jihads” also an “unnecessary expenditure”? Are all those school condom purchases considered “necessary expenditures”?

Coulter’s gullibility is especially funny considering that on his radio show yesterday, right-wing icon Rush Limbaugh mocked those who would fall for Car and Driver’s April Fool’s Day joke:

Every professional practical joker such as myself knows: If you really want to pull something off, don’t do it on a day where people are going to immediately doubt it. It’s absolutely silly. Car and Driver has a phony page on the website saying Obama has banned Ford, Chevy, and a bunch of others from NASCAR.

Well, now, who’s going to believe this? Well, that’s not the quite proper way to ask it. All good comedy requires an element of truth in it, and obviously there are people that believe this could come down the pike. But it hasn’t yet. Run this story tomorrow, if you want to play a practical joke on people.

As of this posting, Human Events has not corrected Coulter’s column.

Yglesias

Men Missing from G-20 Spouses Photo

This is the group photo taken at the G-20 spouses dinner. The world being what it is, the bulk of the G-20 heads of government are men. But not all of them. And yet somehow the men didn’t make it to the photo or perhaps didn’t make it to the dinner:

g20_glamour_spouses_expires_1.jpg

That’s via Dana Goldstein who remarks:

You know, it’s perfectly okay if [Nestor] Kirchner and [Joachim] Sauer have better things to do than pose for silly pictures and be props for their politician wives. I wish more female political spouses had the same convictions, and that the public could accept that. But it would still be pretty rad to see some male faces at the spouse table from time to time. Things are changing — but sometimes the world can’t see it.

Good points.

Climate Progress

Exclusive: Does carbon-eating cement deserve the hype?

[Please Digg this post by clicking here.]

I am trying to identify the plausible CO2-mitigation strategies that are scalable — that can comprise at least a half a wedge (see “How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution).

So when a new process gets this much hype — as in Scientific American‘s, “Cement from CO2: A Concrete Cure for Global Warming?” — it deserves scrutiny. Wired magazine’s “The Top 10 Green-Tech Breakthroughs of 2008,” provides both a good summary of the process and more evidence of the hype:

1. CALERA’S GREEN CEMENT DEMO PLANT OPENS

Cement? With all the whiz bang technologies in green technology, cement seems like an odd pick for our top clean technology of the year. But here’s the reason: making cement — and many other materials — takes a lot of heat and that heat comes from fossil fuels.

Calera’s technology, like that of many green chemistry companies, works more like Jell-O setting. By employing catalysis instead of heat, it reduces the energy cost per ton of cement. And in this process, CO2 is an input, not an output. So, instead of producing a ton of carbon dioxide per ton of cement made — as is the case with old-school Portland cement — half a ton of carbon dioxide can be sequestered.

With more than 2.3 billion tons of cement produced each year, reversing the carbon-balance of the world’s cement would be a solution that’s the scale of the world’s climate change problem.

In August, the company opened its first demonstration site next to Dynegy’s Moss Landing power plant in California, pictured here.

As the sage once said, “Amazing, if true.”

Yet whether Calera’s process can actually sequester significant amounts of net CO2 and whether it is scalable has been called into question by some of the country’s leading climate scientists, including Ken Caldeira, a widely published expert on the carbon cycle whom I have known for many years.

Emails on this subject have been racing around the Internet, and I have communicated with both Calera and Caldeira (yes, I know, the kind of strange coincidence that makes reality so much less plausible than fiction).

While this is a long post with a lot of unavoidable chemistry it, the bottom line is that I think Caldeira has made a strong case that

  • The scalability of the process is in doubt
  • We won’t know if net CO2 is saved unless Calera is much more forthcoming on all of the inputs and outputs

Read more

Health

Thomas Scully: ‘Medicare Makes Decisions On Coverage All The Time, I Made Decisions On Coverage All The Time’

Today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund hosted a forum to discuss how the Medicare program can inform this year’s health care reform debate. After the event, ThinkProgress sat down with Thomas Scully, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from 2001-2003, and asked him to respond to conservatives (like Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)) who argue that health information technology and comparative effectiveness research would ration health care:

I had a lot of those fights because the reality is the government should be able to look at what’s the appropriate level for PET scans or MRIs?…You know, Medicare makes decisions on coverage all the time. I made decisions on coverage all the time based on what I thought was not – on comparative effectiveness research. You got to do it the right way. But I think – I’ve always been a big fan of comparative effectiveness research if done correctly.

Watch it:

Scully dismissed the likes of Sally Pipes and Betsy McCaughey as “just noise” and argued that since Republicans are in the minority, “their job is to hurl attacks,” just as some Democrats did during the debate surrounding Medicare Part D.

Asked if the odds of health reform are better this year, Scully predicted that “the odds are lower” of passing health reform now “because the economy is in such bad shape, I think it’s going to be very difficult to finance this thing.” “I don’t think that the core people that are really in the weeds of health care in the Senate is as big as it was…I don’t think there is a group of 20 guys that really are health care wonks like there was 15 years ago,” Scully explained.

During the panel discussion, however, Scully admitted that the world would have been a better place had Congress passed President Clinton’s health reform plan. “They made a lot of strategic errors back then…but the core issue was trying to fix the commercial insurance option…which is the right thing to do, they probably went too far… but had the plan passed back then, the fundamental concept behind it was regional purchasing cooperatives with a better structured insurance market, which is exactly what we’re talking about right now.”

Transcript: Read more

Politics

After Opposing Immigration Reform During His Presidential Campaign, Romney Flip-Flops Again

Our guest blogger is Henry Fernandez, a Senior Fellow at the Center For American Progress Action Fund working on state and municipal issues.

arpaio.gifDuring his 2007-8 run for President, Mitt Romney switched from historically supporting immigration reform to being against it, championing a mass expulsion plan that he acknowledged would not work. Romney was so right-wing on immigration, that he enthusiastically accepted the endorsements of anti-immigrant ideologue and former Congressman Tom Tancredo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, now under investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of Latinos.

As a successful businessman who recently joined the board of the heavily immigrant-reliant Marriott hotel company, Romney has apparently learned that appearing anti-immigrant or anti-Latino is politically foolish in a country where Latinos and Asians have grown to 11% of the vote. He has now flipped again and is calling for the Republican Party to support comprehensive immigration reform and to pass such a bill right away. The Hill interviewed Romney and reported yesterday:

Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail. “We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters,” he said.

Romney should know about demagoguing on immigration. He did it himself.

During the campaign, Romney thought his anti-immigration postition would help him with Republican primary voters. Ironically, it cost him the nomination when he ran head long into the diversity of the Republican Party in Florida. While John McCain did not beat Romney among white voters in the Florida primary, McCain crushed him among Latino Republicans, effectively ending both Romney’s campaign and the primary.

As I noted at the time, Romney’s hard line position on immigration was beyond hypocritical. His own family’s immigration history was to put it modestly, “unique.” His great grandfather immigrated in apparent violation of both US and Mexican laws to Mexico when the US government cracked down on polygamists. Three generations of Mitt’s ancestors lived in Mexico, his father was born there, and he has family which still resides there. What brought his grandparents back to the US were impacts of the Mexican Civil War. To be clear — like many more recent immigrants, Mitt’s immediate family immigrated to the US from Mexico because of increasing violence and changing economic conditions.

The fact the Republican Party was hijacked by anti-immigrant extremists has been obvious for some time. Republicans torpedoed the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration compromise bill in 2007 for fear of an extremist backlash. Conservative commentators like Richard Nadler have described how this led to a major shift in Latino and immigrant voters away from the GOP. In turn, states like New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina flipped to Obama as Latinos, Asians and immigrants shifted their votes and came out in large numbers to vote.

Hopefully “Multiple Choice Mitt” has found his final answer.

Yglesias

David Horowitz Reprimands Fellow Conservatives to Stop Over-the-Top Criticism of Obama

103105horowitzdavid.jpg

Brendan Nyhan observes that it’s mighty strange to see David Horowitz making sense, but here it is:

I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the Left.

Man bites dog.

Politics

Flashback: In his last year in office, Bush still didn’t know what the G20 was.

bush10.jpgPresident Obama — in a departure from President Bush — has made a point during his G20 visit to emphasize that the economic crisis demands a collective global response. Indeed, in a phone call with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last October about the financial collapse, Rudd told Bush that the best response should involve the broader G20, including China — while Bush wanted response to be handled within the G7. Bush, however, reportedly didn’t have a clue what the G20 was:

Informed sources have confirmed the discussion took place on a speaker telephone with a Rudd staffer taking notes.
After the President explained the pressure from Europe for a G7-brokered action on supporting the credit sector and reforming regulation, Rudd immediately insisted the G20 was the solution.

Rudd was then stunned to hear Bush say: “What’s the G20?”

Security

Right-Wing Pro-Israel Groups Coordinating With Bibi

netanyahu.jpgVia Attackerman, James Besser reports that “groups on the Jewish and Christian right say they’re ready to run interference for [Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu] in Congress, especially if the Barack Obama administration decides to move aggressively on Palestinian statehood, or even presses on sensitive issues such as Israeli settlements.”

“There’s a kindred spirit between Christian Zionists and Netanyahu,” said the Rev. James Hutchens, president of The Jerusalem Connection, a Christian group. “He has demonstrated his willingness to reach out to us in the past and he shares our views. He is much more resistant to giving up land for peace — he’s referred to it as land for terror. I’m looking forward to working with him in any way we can.” [...]

[Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America] admitted, “We have been in contact with a number of Bibi’s confidants, and the impression they give is that this will be a very tough government — that there will be no concessions without a transformation in the [Palestinian] culture. And they said they were very appreciative of our efforts to bring that message to Congress.”

It seems to me that if you had groups of, for example, Arab-American lobbyists openly talking about how they were going to work in concert with a foreign government to frustrate U.S. foreign policy aims, it would be a pretty big deal. I’m almost certain that conservatives would be up in arms. Andy McCarthy would attack the media for not reporting it correctly. Frank Gaffney would quickly churn out a dubiously-sourced report. And Daniel Pipes and the gang at Middle East Forum would be flooding my inbox with splenetic warnings of the Islamist/Sharia/Wahabbi conspiracy to steal America’s vital essence — not that they don’t do that anyway.

As it is, Pipes is already helping to run interference for the new right-wing Israeli government, praising foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman’s speech yesterday — in which the racist extremist Lieberman declared that Israel’s commitments at the 2007 Annapolis peace conference had “no validity” — as a “brilliant debut.”

According to Besser’s article, one of the right-wing Christian groups involved in lobbying for Netanyahu’s agenda is Christians United For Israel (CUFI), led by Rev. John Hagee. Last May, Sen. John McCain was forced to reject Hagee’s presidential endorsement after ThinkProgress and other organizations publicized various offensive positions Hagee holds, such as that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for teh gay, and that “God allowed [the Holocaust] to happen” in order to help re-establish the state of Israel and bring about the End Times.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up