ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Senator Dick Durbin Talks to Pat Garofalo About Housing Policy

Interesting stuff as my colleague Pat Garofalo sits down for a brief chat with Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and they talk about “cramdown” legislation and other possible options for stemming home foreclosures:

It’s really remarkable how much political clout the big banks retain notwithstanding everything that’s happened. And it certainly makes you pessimistic that regulatory changes currently being contemplated are going to stick. How much clout are these guys going to have once the financial crisis is a few years in the rearview?

Security

‘Engagement Was Pressure’

kwirgcSpencer Ackerman runs down some of the key points of Roger Cohen’s must-read piece on Obama’s Iran strategy. I respond to a couple.

Engagement is foundational for Obama, as is divestiture of what Cohen calls “emotion” from foreign policy, as part of the meta-point of combating what his campaign advisers-turned-White House advisers (McDonough and Rhodes in particular) call the “politics of fear.” You knew this already. Critics will call this engagement for its own sake or engagement for the theological belief that it will work. Neither is true, since, on the former point, Obama thinks that engagement is an untested tactic that might unlock a less bellicose Iran and, on the latter, Obama has already said Iran has till about the end of the year or a little after to respond to the overture and Dennis Ross is thinking through what Plan B ought to contain. But it’s accurate to say that there’s a lot of emotional investment from the administration in Plan A working, and that if it doesn’t, a dispirited administration will cobble together a more punitive policy package.

As Spencer notes, Cohen’s article does good work dismantling the conservative strawman arguments about “engagement fetishists,” (to use the preferred term of a conservative friend of mine) but I think it’s worth stressing what deputy national-security adviser Tom Donilon told Cohen, “Engagement was pressure.”

As I wrote in response to Michael Gerson last week, while we shouldn’t pretend that the Iranian elections were a referendum on Obama, I think it’s clear that Obama’s outreach did play a part in Iran’s internal politics, empowering reformers seeking an end to Iran’s international isolation and undercutting hardline propaganda about the Great Satan. This represented an enormous threat to Iran’s conservatives, who responded accordingly.

While the most optimal outcome of engagement would obviously be a positive change in the U.S.-Iran relationship, Obama has always been clear that this may not work. In that case, the engagement strategy generates greater international resolve to confront Iran by making clear to the international community who the recalcitrant party is. While this is less optimal, I don’t think it’s any less intentional.

Spencer:

It’s too pat to say definitively that the Iranian opposition doesn’t want U.S. support. I’ve written this a lot since June 12, because the evidence hasn’t been there that the opposition wants American aid. Cohen, who’s sympathetic to the argument that the U.S. ought to stay out of Iranian politics, reports some anecdotes of Iranian protesters asking him, “Where’s Obama?” He doesn’t spend much time fleshing that out, but it makes me think that I should revise and extend. At least some protesters seem to want moral support — there is no evidence that they want material support — and the Obama administration doesn’t want to be locked in to not negotiating with an Iranian government assembled by a thief.

While the difference between material and moral support is important, so is the difference between moral support and sanctimonious grandstanding of the sort that we saw coming from McCain and the gang in the election’s aftermath, which in any case was intended mainly for domestic political consumption.

Without diminishing their sentiments, I’m not surprised at all that Cohen was able to find protesters who wanted Obama to support the protests more explicitly — if that is in fact what these protesters meant by “Where’s Obama?” I was torn over this question as well, wanting to see Obama engage more fully behind the protesters, but questioning the practical effects on the ground. The general consensus among Iranian pro-reform activists and analysts, however, at least as far as I can tell, is that Obama’s treatment of the protests — stressing human rights but not taking a side in the electoral dispute — and the manner in which he carefully raised the temperature over the course of the demonstrations, was well done. Certainly no one has ever offered a remotely plausible scenario in which earlier, more forceful condemnation of the regime by Obama could have led to a better outcome.

Politics

McCain Opposes Activist Judges, Unless They’re Conservative

johnmccainOne day after he warned that Republicans have a “very, very deep hole that we’ve got to come out of” with Latino voters, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced that he would oppose the first Latina nominated to the nation’s highest court. Moreover, in his statement opposing Judge Sonia Sotomayor, McCain misrepresents his own record on judges:

Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator. … To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench. I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land.

Despite his claim that he has never supported a judge who “seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case,” McCain voted in favor of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito; and he described both Roberts and Alito as “model judges” during the 2008 campaign.  A few of these three justices’ greatest hits include:

  • Repealing the Twentieth Century: In three opinions that read like a tea-bagger’s wet dream, Justice Thomas would have restricted Congress’ power to enact economic regulation to a point unheard of since the Great Depression.  A short list of laws that would simply cease to exist in Clarence Thomas’s America includes “the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the sick leave portions of the Family and Medical Leave, the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act, as well as minimum wage and maximum hour laws.”
  • Selling Justice To The Highest Bidder: Roberts, Thomas and Alito all joined dissents arguing that a West Virginia coal magnate could literally buy a judge for $3 million to overturn a verdict against his company.
  • Corporate Immunity From the Law: Joined by Roberts, Alito wrote a dissent arguing that drug companies have almost-total immunity from the law when one of their dangerous products caused a former professional musician to lose her arm and her ability to play music.  Roberts, Thomas and Alito also joined a majority opinion giving sweeping immunity to the makers of dangerous medical devices.
  • Massive Resistance: All three justices joined a radical opinion which not only held that it is unconstitutional for school boards to desegregate public schools, but which audaciously cited Brown v. Board of Education for this proposition.
  • This Election Brought to You By Wal-Mart: Perhaps most ironic of all, all three of McCain’s justices are poised to declare McCain’s signature legislative accomplishment, campaign finance reform, unconstitutional.

As a Yale Law School study published before Roberts and Alito joined the Supreme Court determined, Justice Thomas is the one justice who is most likely to vote to invalidate an Act of Congress — doing so a massive 65.63% of the time. The Court’s two Clinton appointees, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, are the least likely to second-guess Congress.  So McCain has no problem with judges who “substitute [them]self in the role of a legislator;” he’s just upset that Sotomayor won’t push the same right-wing agenda as his favorite justices.

Climate Progress

“Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?”*

No evidence*But however you answer my question, don’t cite me no scientific evidence.

Someone sent me a terrific set of the “deniers rules for debate” from Mercurius.  Let me introduce them by way of a February 2008 email exchange I had with a denier over the headline question (see here).  The denier wrote:

I have been doing enormous amounts of research in this global warming (caused by man) theories and have concluded that there is not ONE shred of evidence to back it up.  Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?

Hmm. Not one shred of evidence? “PROVE”-in all caps, too!  I know this is mostly pointless, but still, it was the day after my daughter’s first birthday, and I was feeling in good spirits about humanity, so I replied:

This one is easy. Either you believe in science “” i.e. we went to the moon, you go to the doctor, you have IT equipment you rely on “” or you don’t. If you don’t, I can’t “prove” anything to anybody. If you do, then the IPCC reports “” which are nothing more than a literature review by the top scientists in the world, commissioned by and summarized for policymakers, signed off by every friggin’ govt in the world “” are as much proof as a human being could possibly want.

Yes, I was younger and naive back then.  Now I wouldn’t strike thru friggin’.  So he replied:

Sorry Joe but your email back to me is not proof of evidence. As for the IPCC report, I don’t buy into what they say. That is not proof. And yes, I very much believe in science which is why I don’t believe in humans have caused global warming. But my question is simple, what scientific proof can you show me, and I am not talking about some report from the UN, that humans are causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Also, what is the right temperature for the Earth to be at?

Yes, well, the deniers, they believe in “science,” they just don’t believe in scientists or hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles or scientific “evidence,” which brings me to Mercurius’s list of things the deniers will accept as evidence:

Read more

Politics

Liz Cheney: ‘America needs a Commander-in-Chief, not a global community organizer.’

This past weekend, the conservative blog RedState hosted its annual gathering. Featured speakers included Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt, former Congressman Pat Toomey, and Texas Governor (and secessionist sympathizer) Rick Perry. Among the most outrageous comments of the convention came from former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Liz Cheney:

CHENEY: In order to survive as a nation, our President can’t function as a disinterested international arbitrator. He can’t attempt to stand above America and our enemies. In other words, America needs a commander in chief, not a global community organizer.

Watch it:

Cheney’s comments hark back to the 2008 Republican National Convention, where GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and former Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani openly mocked Obama’s past work as a community organizer. Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of Redstate.com, writes that Cheney also said that President Obama “does not care for either pediatricians or policemen.”

Climate Progress

MoveOn, Sierra Club Call For DOJ Investigation Of Bonner Fraud

Sierra Club Bonner ad
The Sierra Club is running this full-page advertisement in CQ, The Hill, Politico, Roll Call, and the National Journal’s Congress Daily AM tomorrow. Click here to enlarge.

Last week, the Washington, DC consulting firm Bonner & Associates was exposed for forging letters in opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Bonner forged letters from the Virginia branch of the NAACP and local community organization Cruciendo Juntos to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), a freshman representative whom the GOP attacked with false ads after he voted in favor of the clean energy legislation. On Friday, Rep. Ed Markey announced his global warming committee would investigate Bonner’s fraud. Today, MoveOn.org began a petition to urge the Department of Justice to investigate this naked fraud in opposition to climate and energy reform:

A lobbying firm hired to fight clean energy was caught sending forged letters from the NAACP and a Hispanic nonprofit to a Democratic congressman. Please conduct a thorough investigation into whether the firm, Bonner & Associates, committed fraud, and how often they’ve done this.

The Sierra Club has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice calling for an investigation, explaining how Bonner’s actions constitute wire fraud:

Sierra Club: Bonner & Associates

The Sierra Club will also be running a full-page advertisement in CQ, The Hill, Politico, Roll Call, and the National Journal’s Congress Daily AM tomorrow that mocks the “coalition to kill clean energy jobs” as “tall tales from Washington lobbyists.”

Bonner & Associates have blamed their forgeries on a “temporary employee,” have not admitted whether they sent fraudulent letters to any other members of Congress, and have yet to disclose their clients.

Media

Why Would Information Blockades Increase Newspaper Revenue?

I 100 percent sympathize with Ian Shapira for being upset about being under-credited for some work he did. That said, I think it’s way off-base of him to spin this tale into a larger saga about how the internet is undermining the economics of news-gathering. For one thing, as Spencer Ackerman says unfortunately this happens to everyone who works in journalism, and newspapers arguably do it even more egregiously than websites. Indeed, it’s not just that MSM outlets rip-off blogs without adequate credit, but MSM outlets are actually really vicious about failing to credit each other. This is bad manners, bad ethics, and I think ultimately not very sensible business practic and everyone ought to cut it off.

That said, no matter how many times someone expresses the view that newspapers’ financial problems are caused by the fact that they’re not allowed to copyright the factual content of the stories their reporters unveil, it’s still not true. The fact of the matter is that the MSM organizations that do the most news-gathering get a staggering volume of web traffic. One could imagine an alternate universe in which the New York Times and BBC were creating all this great content, putting it online, and then aggregation-oriented blogs were re-writing it all and people were only reading the aggregators at NYTimes.com and bbc.co.uk languish. But we don’t actually live in that universe. Rather, we live in a universe in which NYTimes.com and bbb.co.uk are hugely popular websites.

True, the NYT doesn’t charge those who read its website. But subscription costs don’t cover the cost of paper and delivery. When you sell newspapers, you lose money. You earn money from selling ads. But advertisers don’t wan to pay big-time money for web advertisements. This is a big problem for newspapers. But of course it’s an even bigger problem for for-profit web-only enterprises. And altering copyright law doesn’t make the problem go away. But newspaper writers and editors should consider that altering copyright law in an anti-aggregator way would in fact create enormous headaches for working reporters who are naturally going to want to be able to write stories that are informed by accurate factual information that was first reported elsewhere.

Politics

Durbin Responds To Lobbyist-Run Efforts To Harass Town Halls: We ‘Won’t Fall For A Sucker-Punch Like This’

ThinkProgress reported today on the growing number of angry right-wing activists viciously harassing Democratic, as well as moderate Republican, members of Congress on health care reform. Jonathan Cohn wrote that these tactics represent “classic astroturf organizing, in some cases bankrolled by the health care industry.” The insurance industry is sending staff members to over 30 states to “confront” lawmakers about health care reform. Simultaneously, Cohn writes, the health care industry will use the August recess to “flood the airwaves with ads picking apart reform legislation.” Indeed, AHIP, the lobbying juggernaut for the health insurance industry, has promised to change its tone and begin running negative ads on reform soon.

ThinkProgress sat down today with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) to discuss efforts by the health insurance industry and the right wing to derail health reform. Asked about the recent ambushes at town halls, Durbin expressed confidence that his “colleagues won’t fall for a sucker-punch like this”:

DURBIN: Well I think members should be out, speaking with the public, meeting with people who are the health care professionals and talking about the current situation. I’ve done it and I’ll continue to do it. But you know, I hope my colleagues won’t fall for a sucker-punch like this. These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town halls for visual impact on television. They want to show thousands of people screaming ‘socialism’ and try to overcome the public sentiment which now favors health care reform. That’s almost like flooding the switchboards on Capitol Hill. It doesn’t prove much other than the switchboards have limited capacity. So, we need to have a much more balanced approach that really allows members of Congress to hear both sides of the story, rather than being sucker-punched or side-tracked by these types of tactics.

Watch it:

The same lobbyist-run groups which orchestrated the tea party protests — Americans for Prosperity, run by a former associate of Jack Abramoff, and FreedomWorks, run by former Republican Majority Leader and current lobbyist Dick Armey — are now pushing to use the August recess as an opportunity to present a guise of public opposition to health care reform. ThinkProgress obtained a leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with Tea Party Patriots, a website sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, that details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress. Recommended tactics include: “yell,” “stand up and shout,” and “rattle” lawmakers.

Update

The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo reports that, in a separate portion of the interview with ThinkProgress, Durbin spoke about the possibility of passing mortgage cram-down legislation. “The banking industry is extremely powerful on Capitol Hill and this is a proposal that they hate the most,” he said. “Unfortunately, they don’t have an alternative and the foreclosure crisis is getting much worse.”

Economy

Sen. Durbin: We’ll ‘Be Forced Into Alternatives’ To Cram-Down, To Create ‘A New Climate Of Negotiation’

Back in April, the banking industry and its allies in Congress successfully defeated a change to bankruptcy law that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to cram-down mortgage payments for troubled homeowners. The banking industry spent $42 million on lobbyists to defeat cram-down in the first quarter of 2009 alone, leading Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the bill’s sponsor and chief proponent, to conclude that the banks “frankly own the place.”

But with no end to the foreclosure crisis in sight, interest in cram-down has been renewed, as the Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing on it and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) expressed an interest in reviving it in the House. Today, Durbin spoke with The Wonk Room about the future of the legislation:

DURBIN: We’ve gained from the first time I offered it to the most recent. We have more senators supporting it. The banking industry is extremely powerful on Capitol Hill and this is a proposal that they hate the most. Unfortunately, they don’t have an alternative and the foreclosure crisis is getting much worse.

Q: If cram-down doesn’t come to pass, are any of the other fixes realistic? Right to rent, something like loans for the unemployed?

DURBIN: I think we’re going to be forced into alternatives and I’m open to them…And even the bill I’m talking about, the bankruptcy reform, isn’t the complete package. We ought to be doing a lot of things. I think [cramdown is] central to it, because it creates a new climate of negotiations. If that lender knows that at the end of the day, the borrower might end up in bankruptcy court and the judge might have the last word, there’s an incentive to sit down across the table.

Watch it:

Durbin added that he is going to begin asking mortgage companies for regular reporting on their progress in completing modifications, adding that “I think they can do a lot more.”

It’s undeniable that the mortgage servicers are not keeping up with the flood of foreclosures, which prompted the administration to bring 25 mortgage companies to the White House for a scolding last week. Thus far, just 200,000 homeowners nationwide are on track for a modification, with 108,000 of those having mortgages owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, both of which are pressuring companies to get modifications moving. So privately held mortgages constitute less than half of the modification effort, even though they account for 55 percent of delinquencies.

The New York Times reported that “many mortgage companies are reluctant to give strapped homeowners a break because the companies collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans.” Given that reality, Congress needs to find a real stick — cram-down or otherwise — to be used against companies eschewing modifications.

Politics

Memoir of former White House official reveals Bush thought Barney was ‘the son he never had.’

ph2009080202129 The Washington Post reports that there is “growing nervousness these days” among prominent conservatives about a forthcoming book by Matt Latimer, former speechwriter to President Bush, defense secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, and GOP Sens. Jon Kyl (AZ) and Mitch McConell (KY). From a preview of the book’s contents:

[W]e hear what senior aides were saying privately after the Bush administration withdrew the Supreme Court nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers, or we find President Bush confiding wistfully (and sounding serious) that his dog, Barney, was the son he never had. Latimer was on Air Force One with Bush and Karl Rove after Rove announced his resignation.

We hear there’s a story of how Rove spoofed the overly formal national security adviser Stephen Hadley’s penchant for eating off a silver platter at late-night work sessions, while everyone else had cafeteria trays, by serving Hadley himself with a silver tray.

There are said to be interesting observations of some of his bosses on the Hill, including one who had trouble with basic facts and another who had a tendency to hide from his staff by barricading himself in his office.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up