ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

House Dem’s resolution describing Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace may put GOP birthers ‘in a jam.’

By ThinkProgress on Jul 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm

neil-abercrombieThe Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) will be introducing a resolution today on the House floor commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. However, there’s a catch. The resolution will also describe Hawaii as President Obama’s birthplace, which may “put House GOPers who are flirting with birtherism in a jam”:

“In the language of the resolution, there is a statement that Hawaii is the birthplace of the 44th President of the United States,” Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert confirms.

That confronts House GOPers with a choice: They can vote for the measure, and endorse the idea that Obama was born in Hawaii, which could earn the wrath of birthers. Or they can vote against commemorating the 50th state’s joining of our blessed Union. Or GOPers can skip the vote, but that could look nutty.

“Far be it from us to try to stir things up,” Helfert said puckishly. “The president was born there, so what are you gonna do? Not mention it?”

Meanwhile, Politico reports that Orly Taitz, who claims to be leading the birther movement, “is boasting on her blog” that she has made some high-profile Republican “friends” on Facebook: RNC chair Michael Steele, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). “To me it means that the leadership of the Republican party understands the importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward,” she said.

Read more about the GOP’s “Wacko Wing” in today’s Progress Report.

Yglesias

Diversity and Health Care

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:43 pm

800px-flag_of_francesvg-1

Ezra Klein got the following question doing some live-chatting:

Lexington, Va.: Hey Ezra – I really enjoyed your article, but I’m wondering, with all the references to European-style health care, what role homogeneity plays in the success of these systems? Many European countries are far less diverse (economically, ethnically, etc.) than the US, and going beyond Europe, Japan’s population is almost entirely homogeneous. Don’t these systems that you have mentioned depend largely on the ease of applying universal care to a population that doesn’t vary from person to person like the US does?

Ezra Klein: Not really. Some of those countries are more and less diverse than others, for one thing. And it’s not as if Montana, which isn’t very diverse, has an awesome health-care system. It’s arguably the case that there are fewer political obstacles in a more homogenous system because it’s easier for voters to feel connected to one another. But there’s no real reason national health insurance should work with 20 percent diversity but not 35 percent diversity.

To back this up with a bit more in the way of demographic information, there’s no objective measure of which society is “most diverse” but I think in a commonsense way the most ethnically and religiously diverse European country is probably France, which is also the country with what’s probably the best health care system. In a different sense of diversity, Belgium is strongly binational, which creates a lot of problems, but hasn’t prevented them (or Canada for that matter) from constructing a reasonable health care system. Meanwhile, citizens of super-homogenous Japan are extremely healthy but my understanding is that their health care system actually delivers a pretty low standard of care.

I think what you can say about America’s diversity and health care is that segregationist sentiment was a major impediment to creating a universal health care system back in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s as there was fear that a national health care system would come under pressure, like the military, to be desegregated

Justice

Momentum Builds For New Civil Rights Act, But Will Congress Be Aggressive Enough?

By Ian Millhiser on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm

workplace-discriminationThe last Supreme Court Term was a disaster for the American worker, with workplace anti-discrimination law taking an especially hard beating since the Court convened last October.  The good news, however, is that momentum is building for a Lilly Ledbetter-like Congressional override of one of the Court’s most egregious recent decisions, Gross v. FBL Financial Services.

In Gross, the Court not only stripped many older Americans of their right to be free from age discrimination in the workplace; it thumbed its nose at a 20 year-old precedent protecting workers from employment discrimination, explaining itself simply by saying that “it is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today in the first instance.” Translation: the right-wing controls the Court now, so they’ll do whatever they want.

Shortly after Gross was handed down, Senate Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) criticized it for “disregard[ing] and ignor[ing] the plain reading and common understanding” of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  House Education and Labor Committee Chair George Miller (D-CA) went even further, promising to hold hearings on whether Congress should overrule Gross.  Last week, a news site for corporate attorneys warned that a Gross override could be in the pipe.

Although health care and the Sotomayor nomination are currently monopolizing Congress’ attention, there is no good reason why a Gross override shouldn’t be an easy lift in the coming year–especially because the economic downturn has created an unexpected constituency for a Gross override: senior corporate executives.  With profits shrinking, many businesses are looking to cut their most expensive workers–generally their oldest and most experienced employees–possibly replacing them with younger, cheaper faces.  Thus, Gross creates the unusual circumstance where wealthy, powerful businessmen and women are lined up against their employers and their employers’ lobbyists, and thus can provide a heavy counterweight to corporate America’s inevitable efforts to keep Gross alive.

But even if the stars are aligning against one of the Court’s most ill-considered and arrogant recent decisions, the real question is whether Congress has the courage to think bolder.  Last Term alone, the Court handed down four major decisions cutting back on civil rights in the workplace, if Gross is the only case on the chopping block, that sends a clear message to the Roberts Court that its right-wing agenda will succeed 75% of the time–and that’s just within the past year.  Simply overriding Gross does nothing to correct the backlog of wrongly-decided cases handed down during the last several decades of conservative rule.

Rather than take a single potshot at a single bad decision, Congress should consider something in the vein of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. John Lewis’ (D-GA) Civil Rights Act of 2008, which would roll back nearly a decade of inexcusable Supreme Court decisions–decisions which left many recipients of federal funds free to engage in discrimination, immunized state employers from accountability for age discrimination, and allow employers to force their employees into a secretive, privatized justice system that overwhelming favors corporations.

It’s unquestionably good news that Congress is setting the wheels in motion to overturn Gross, but the American people must not be satisfied with a single drop-in-the-bucket.  The Court declared war on civil rights a long time ago, and Congress simply doesn’t have time to clean up the justices’ mess one piece at a time.

Politics

Gohmert Trades Ideas With Conspiracy Theorist, Says Obama Health Plan Will ‘Absolutely Kill Senior Citizens’

By Lee Fang on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Last Friday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) joined radical conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on his radio talk show for an interview. Jones has made a name for himself propagating conspiracies ranging from the claim that Bill Clinton planned the Oklahoma City bombings to the idea that the attacks on 9/11 were orchestrated by a cabal of American and Israeli government officials.

During the 30-minute interview about “nation ending stuff,” Gohmert used his opportunity on the Jones show to showcase his own odd anti-Obama conspiracy theories:

GOHMERT: We’ve been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens. They’ll put them on lists and force them to die early because they won’t get the treatment as early as they need. [...] I would rather stop this socialization of health care because once the government pays for your health care, they have every right to tell you what you eat, what you drink, how you exercise, where you live. [...] But if we’re going to pay 700 million dollars like we voted last Friday to put condoms on wild horses, and I know it just says an un-permanent enhanced contraception whatever the heck that is. I guess it follows that they’re eventually get around to doing it to us.

The outrageous claim that a public option in health care will kill people is becoming a popular meme within the GOP caucus, used also by members such as Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA). But not to be outdone, Jones offered the congressman his own set of conspiracy theories and outlandish statements, many of which Gohmert agreed with:

JONES: Did you hear about the WH science czar calling for putting stuff in the water to sterilize us?

GOHMET: No, I had not heard that. [...]

GOHMERT: People are always willing to give up their liberty to get economic stability.

JONES: Look at Hitler.

GOHMERT: Absolutely. Boy that’s the best example, maybe the best example. […]

JONES: As the Time magazine headline said, we’ve almost got national health care. They’ve almost got eugenics control grid over us. Can you speak to your website, how we help you. In closing, the youth brigades, national service compulsory in a group outside the military under the Democratic party control in the city year in the red and black uniforms? [...] In closing, and we’re going to let you go sir, the youth brigades, national compulsory service, the Democrats have introduced those bills. Your take on that?

GOHMERT: Well you just referred to that point in history where this stuff has been done before. It was done in the 1930s and its not the only place its been done. It has been done throughout history.

JONES: Mao did it.

GOHMERT: Well that’s exactly what I was thinking of. This is the kind of the thing we got to stop. We got to get back to the roots, the basics.

Listen here:

While swapping conspiracy theories, the two also traded compliments. “That shows how on top of things you are, Alex,” said Gohmert at one point, praising the talk show’s knowledge. Jones also thanked Gohmert many times and reminded him that “you’re there fighting and we’re supporting you.”

Despite his outlandish views, Jones’ influence can not be underestimated. Richard Poplawski, the young man who gunned down three Pittsburgh police officers earlier this year after professing a fear that the government would confiscate his guns, was a die-hard fan of Jones. Jones, who rants daily about Obama’s intentions to revoke the 2nd amendment, is also one of the loudest voices for the “birther movement.”

Yglesias

Iceland on the Mend

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 27, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Storkur, Iceland (my photo, available under cc license)

Storkur, Iceland (my photo, available under cc license)

I’ve been saying that for all the gloating people did last fall over Iceland’s collapse, that the country was actually in pretty good shape. Yves Smith observes, for example, that a small open economy like Iceland’s can just nationalize its banks and devalue its currency and put itself on the road to recovery. That’s not a fun thing to experience, but it’s a lot better than what Spain and Ireland are looking at—a sustained period of double-digit unemployment and round after round of nominal wage cuts.

Meanwhile, the other thing I’ve been saying is that currency issues aside, the fundamentals in Iceland are strong. It’s a small, quiet, peaceful, homogenous country full of healthy and well-educated people. When the global economy comes back, they’re as well-positioned as anyone else to take advantage of whatever opportunities present themselves.

Security

Dershowitz: Palestinians ‘Played A Significant Role In The Holocaust’

By Matt Duss on Jul 27, 2009 at 3:40 pm

dershLast week, responding to international criticism of Israeli plans to build new Jewish homes in an Arab neighborhood of Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman “ordered embassies abroad to use a photo of Adolf Hitler meeting a top Palestinian cleric.”

The decision to circulate a 1941 photo featuring the Nazi dictator sitting with the then grand mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini is aimed at easing pressure on Israel over a construction project on land in annexed east Jerusalem once owned by the cleric, [an Israeli] official told AFP.

Appointed “grand mufti” in 1921 by the British mandate authorities as a means to dividing and controlling competing Palestinian factions (the title and position itself was a British creation), Husseini eventually fled Palestine and attempted to form an alliance with Nazi Germany. Husseini hoped that, by collaborating with the enemy of the British, who he believed were facilitating the takeover of Palestine by Zionist settlers, he might be able both to prevent the creation of a Jewish state and establish himself as a regional power.

There is little doubt that Husseini had extreme, racist views of Jews, and that he gave support to the Nazis in hopes of gaining advantage against the British and Zionist forces in Palestine. What this specifically has to do with Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem, however, is less clear.

Doing his part to push the Israeli line, yesterday Alan Dershowitz took it even further. In his Jerusalem Post column — which, in a bit of unintentional irony, is called “Double Standard Watch” — Dershowitz questioned whether the Palestinian people, collectively, bore any responsibility for the Holocaust. “The truth,” wrote Dershowitz, “is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust.”

This claim is preposterous. And, needless to say, Dershowitz utterly fails to prove it, managing only to establish the already known facts that a Palestinian leader, Husseini, had a relationship with the Nazis, and that many Palestinians still consider Husseini something of a nationalist hero. The idea that Husseini, let alone the Palestinians as a whole, played a “significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust” is laughable, as if the Nazis required one of the sub-human races to sign off on their plans for mass murder.

This is obviously not scholarship, but nor is it simply polemic. It is the attempted slander of the Palestinian people, in order to diminish their historical claim to a state with Jerusalem as its capital. In his Cairo speech, President Obama importantly recognized this claim as being co-equal with Israel’s, and admirably rejected the childishly one-sided narrative of the conflict that Dershowitz is peddling.

It’s important not to lose sight of what’s really at issue here. Lieberman’s order to push the Husseini photo and its attendant anti-Palestinian propaganda is aimed at deflecting attention away from Israel’s extremely provocative efforts to thicken the Jewish presence in occupied areas of Jerusalem. These efforts inflict an enormous cost on Jerusalem’s Arab inhabitants, who are prohibited from expanding their homes and neighborhoods, even as Jewish residents are encouraged to — and aided in it by the Israeli government and private American donors.

This is the real double standard, Mr. Dershowitz. Look into it.

Yglesias

Uninsurance in the 300-400 Percent of Federal Poverty Line Bracket

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 27, 2009 at 3:14 pm

The crude and simple way to make health reform cheaper is to just make it less generous—fewer subsidies, for example. Congressional liberals are looking at subsidies for families of up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. But how much would it undermine the project to be someone less ambitious. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation relatively few people in the 300-400 percent of FPL bracket currently lack insurance:

uninsurance

On the other hand, there’s a decent case to be made on the merits that subsidies are really in order all the way up to 500 percent of FPL. Which as I’ve said before really highlights that in an ideal world we’d just all pay taxes and all get health coverage in exchange for the taxes.

Climate Progress

Politicos anonymous sources slam Barbara Boxers abrasive personal style because she understands climate science and fights to avert catastrophe

By Joe Romm on Jul 27, 2009 at 3:14 pm

An illustration of Barbara Boxer by POLITICO's Matt Wuerker.I was going to blog on this umpteenth attack on strong progressive women, but Matt Yglesias beat me to the punch here, so to speak.  The illustration actually comes from the Politico.  I’ll add my thoughts to Matt’s comments at the end:

I used to think that US Senate Barbara Boxer was an experienced legislator with a solid progressive record on the issues. But then I read this Politico article in which various anonymous people criticize her “abrasive personal style” and “outspoken partisan liberal” demeanor. Big trouble! And then I got to thinking, I recall having read similar critiques of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and now as Secretary of State has been subjected to similar criticism. Nancy Pelosi, too.

You’ve really got to wonder what the deal is with the Democratic Party that every woman who comes forward into a position of power and influence is a shrill, castrating harridan. I mean, what are Democrats thinking? What poor judgment! Doesn’t everyone know that politics is a business in which the only people who get ahead are soft-spoken sweethearts like Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer? Somehow male politicians have managed to figure this out. What’s stopping the women?

Two excerpts from the Politico piece are particularly egregioius:

Read more

Politics

Gibbs: Birther conspiracy theory is ‘made-up, fictional nonsense.’

By Amanda Terkel on Jul 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm

The “birther” myth about whether or not President Obama was born in the United States refuses to die, with conservative lawmakers and major media figures granting these conspiracy theorists legitimacy. In today’s White House press briefing, a reporter asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs addressed this issue:

Q: Is there anything you can say to make the birthers go away?

GIBBS: No. I mean, the God’s honest truth is no. I mean, Bill, let’s understand this. And I almost hate to indulge in such an august setting as the White House — and I mean this in seriousness — the White House briefing room, discussing the made-up, fictional nonsense of whether or not the President was born in this country.

A year and a half ago, I asked that the birth certificate be put on the Internet, because Lord knows, if you’ve got a birth certificate and you put it on the Internet, what else could be the story? Here’s the deal, Bill. If I had some DNA, it wouldn’t assuage those who don’t believe he was born here. But I have news for them and for all of us. The President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth. He’s a citizen.

When a reporter asked Gibbs why the issue keeps “coming up,” he replied, “Because for $15, you can get an Internet address and say whatever you want.” Watch it:

For more about the “birthers,” read today’s Progress Report on “The Wacko Wing.”

Transcript: Read more

Security

McCain Says Spanish-Language Ads Cost Him Latino Vote: ‘Life Isn’t Fair’

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Jul 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm

In an interview with Jorge Ramos on Univision’s “Al Punto,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) blamed Spanish-language attack ads, which he claims portrayed him as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigration reform, for costing him the Latino vote in last year’s elections:

RAMOS: Are Republicans concerned about upsetting their base if they vote to legalize undocumented immigrants?

MCCAIN: I don’t know…uh…I can’t speak for all Republicans…I know I was out there twice — on the floor of the Senate with Senator Kennedy — trying to pass comprehensive immigration with a path to legalization on it and I was attacked during the campaign for being anti-immigrant. Life isn’t fair.

RAMOS: Talking specifically about that — the last time we spoke was during the campaign. And you know and I know that you only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. Are you disappointed? What went wrong?

MCCAIN: Obviously I’m very disappointed. Millions of dollars of attack ads on your network and across the country in Spanish-language stations attacked me for being anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigration reform. They succeeded.

Watch it:

In 2006, McCain voted for Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) amendment to “declare English as the national language.” It seems McCain has consistently failed to note that many Latinos have mastered both English and Spanish. The 69% of Latino voters who voted against McCain probably didn’t have to look much farther than his own conflicting statements on immigration policy. It’s true that McCain fought and lost the battle for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. Yet, less than one year later he stated that he wouldn’t support his own bill during a Republican presidential primary debate. Later on, his party adopted an “uncompromising anti-immigrant agenda” as part of the GOP platform.

Meanwhile, McCain sang a much different tune in the ethnic media. He launched a Spanish-language ad campaign blaming Obama and Senate Democrats for intentionally killing immigration reform with what he called “poison pill amendments.” Maybe McCain forgot that the same day the bill died, he came out blaming opposition within his own party, saying “A lot of the Republican base was passionate about the issue, and they made their influence felt.” The Obama camp responded by airing its “dos caras” ad, which portrayed McCain as two-faced on immigration. In another campaign ad, McCain translated “pro-innovation immigration policies” in English to “immigration policy innovation” in Spanish captions, essentially conveying two different messages to anyone who understands both.

When Ramos asked McCain if he thinks immigration reform is possible this year, McCain responded that he “didn’t know,” but that he will not support any legislation that does not contain a legal guest worker program.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up