ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

G. Gordon Liddy Says ‘I’m Convinced’ That ‘Barack Obama Is A Muslim,’ Gary Bauer Doesn’t Disagree

By Matt Corley on Nov 13, 2009 at 4:00 pm

G. Gordon Liddy and Gary BauerOn his radio show today, G. Gordon Liddy hosted former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer to discuss his Human Events column on the Fort Hood massacre, in which Bauer — echoing his close personal friend Bill Kristol — declared that “[p]olitical correctness has been radical Islam’s greatest asset in its war against America. Let’s execute it.” “Accommodation of Islam pervades our schools,” added Bauer in his column.

In the beginning of their discussion, Liddy said that political correctness towards Islam “precedes the Obama administration” because President Bush proclaimed that “Islam is a religion of peace.” “You know that’s just not true,” said Liddy. Later in the conversation, after Bauer complained that Obama’s Homeland Security adviser John Brennan would lead the investigation into what the U.S. intelligence community knew about Nidal Malik Hasan before his attack, Liddy announced his belief that President Obama “is a Muslim”:

LIDDY: I’m convinced that despite his protestations to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t believe that he’s a Christian at all. I believe he’s a Muslim.

BAUER: Well, you know the church that he famously or infamously attended was, was odd in many ways. Not only the rantings of its pastor, the clear racist rantings of its pastor, which the President chose to listen to year after year with his family and his children. You know something that still in my view has never been adequately explained. But it was also a church that had some real strange ideas about Islam and Christianity. I’ve seen a number of suggestions that there were many people in the congregation that considered themselves both Christian and Muslim. Something that I’m sure both real Christians and real Muslims would deny is possible.

Not only did Bauer not disagree with Liddy’s claim that Obama is lying about his Christianity, he went on to praise Liddy’s contribution to America’s political debate. “You do an outstanding job on your show bringing people the information they need,” said Bauer. “I commend you for the good work you do every day.” Listen to it here:

It’s not surprising that Liddy would hold such a fringe view. After all, he is a prominent birther who thinks that Obama is an “illegal alien.” Bauer, on the other hand, has previously written that he doesn’t want to “question the sincerity of Obama’s faith.” But in playing along with Liddy, that’s exactly what he has done.

Health

Insurers Complain That House Bill Lets Them Charge Older People Just Twice As Much As Younger People

By Igor Volsky on Nov 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Yesterday, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — the health insurance lobby — held a press conference focusing on “the need for major change, and for keeping costs in check.” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni warned that “the bill the House passed could thrust too much of the cost of health care onto the shoulders of younger people because it lets insurers charge older people – who typically incur much higher medical bills and whose incomes are generally higher – just twice as much as younger people.”

The lobby has long argued that if insurers can’t set premiums for older adults “as much as 5 times as high as those for younger adults for identical coverage,” then they would have to shift costs to younger applicants. Coverage would become “unaffordable,” “resulting in a smaller and less stable pool, and higher premiums for everyone.”

But a recent report from the Urban Institute disputes these claims. The report, which models premiums under 5:1, 2:1, and 1:1 age bands, concludes that “overall, there is almost no difference across the premium rating options in the share of the total population that would be left uninsured.” Similarly, the various age bands would be very little effect “on aggregate health spending of government, employers, and household.”

However, the report concluded that the insurers’ preferred rating of 5:1 would “significantly alter health care financing burdens for the youngest and oldest adults and families” who don’t qualify for government subsidies (for those who do qualify, the difference would be absorbed by the subsidy.) As the chart below demonstrates, “the affordability concerns are substantially more pronounced” for older single adults (55-64yo) under the 5:1 rating than for younger single adults (18-24yo) under the 2:1 rating”:

PercentIncome

A 5:1 rating would significantly burden 55-64 year olds purchasing non-group coverage and actually increase subsidy costs. An earlier version of the Senate Finance Committee bill adopted the industry’s 5:1 recommendation, but changed the rating during mark-up. The insurers, however, insist on the 5:1, noting that the government could provide seniors with an “external” subsidy outside of the exchange to help them afford coverage.

Generally, the industry is concerned that a tighter age band would jeopardize the industry’s ability to attract a significant number of young people into high deductible policies outside of the exchange (in the remaining individual market). A 4:1 or 2:1 community rating would force insurers to charge younger people higher premiums and would presumably attract fewer enrollees; a 5:1 community rating would allow insurers to charge older people more and market more “affordable” (read: high deductible) policies to young and healthy applicants who pay more in premiums than they file in claims.

As former health insurance executive Wendell Potter explained in an interview with ThinkProress, insurers would “like to move us all into high deductible plans.” “[The would like to] have high deductibles that we would all have to meet and or [move us] into these limited benefit plans that are very skimpy and don’t cover you, don’t cover what you need. That way, when you do get sick, they’re not on the hook to pay you anything. They would love to have you enrolled in these.”

Climate Progress

Energy and Global Warming New for Novermber 13: Energy industry gives heavily to Senate Finance panel; UK PM to attend Copenhagen

By Climate Guest Blogger on Nov 13, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Energy industry well acquainted with Finance panel members

Oil and gas companies and electric utilities over the past two decades have poured $8 million into the campaign coffers of lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee who could now look to shape climate legislation.

Senators on the committee also have received campaign money from other segments of the energy industry that would be affected by a sweeping climate and energy bill, including wind, solar, coal, nuclear power, steel manufacturing and the forest and paper industry.

All told, those likely to be affected by climate and energy legislation for the current election cycle have given nearly $390,000 to Democrats on the Finance Committee and nearly $251,000 to Republican members, an E&E analysis of campaign contributions shows.

Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has indicated the panel will likely rewrite and vote on the portion of the climate bill that caps carbon emissions and lets businesses buy and sell emissions permits. Any rewrite would affect a broad cross-section of businesses now giving contributions.

“Companies have a lot to win or lose with legislative outcomes, and they are clearly positioning themselves to be winners,” said Tyson Slocum, director of watchdog group Public Citizen’s energy program.

“It’s all an effort to get access,” Slocum added. “That’s what making campaign contributions provides you, is enhanced access with members of Congress. It doesn’t guarantee outcomes but it increases your odds of being able to influence the outcomes.”

The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over much of the structure of a cap-and-trade program including how much companies will be able to bank emissions permits in one year and use in another, and whether free permits given to companies could be turned into a kind of security that could be bundled and sold like mortgages, said Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Baucus has said he might want to look at how any free greenhouse gas emission allowances would be doled out to regulated industries.

“There are two reasons for a company to donate,” to a political campaign, Green said. “One, they are hoping to make a profit either selling carbon credits, or having their competitor disadvantaged. Or, two, they are staring high costs in the face and they want to get something in the bill to reduce the costs.”

The Finance panel is one of the most powerful on Capitol Hill, and a good portion of those on the committee have been in the Senate at least 20 years, the time period over which the oil and gas industry has given a combined total of at least $5.6 million to those now on the committee, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Electric utilities gave at least $2.4 million during that same period.

Lincoln, Grassley are tops

Read more

Yglesias

What Do Bond Traders Think They Know

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 13, 2009 at 3:14 pm

We see here the past 30 years worth of interest rates on 30 year US government bonds:

bonds 1

And here’s the CBO’s projection for the volume of debt, with the “alternative fiscal scenario” being what the CBO considers to be the most realistic projection based on current policy:

cboproject 1

It’d be interesting to know what the people buying these bonds think is going to happen. Not inflation, based on these yields.

Politics

Tea Party activists plan to burn Reps. Periello and Pelosi in effigy.

By Amanda Terkel on Nov 13, 2009 at 3:02 pm

The Danville TEA Party organization in Virginia is holding a “Fired Up for Freedom” rally next Saturday where it will be “burning Rep. Tom Perriello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in effigy in response to the passage of landmark healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Danville TEA Party Chairman Nigel Coleman said that the group’s members feel like they have “no representation in Congress.” Periello, however, met with the organization in the past. On Nov. 5, he had a conversation with several of the TEA Party members, attempting to explain his position while they talked over him:

In July, protesters also hung Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD) in effigy outside his district office. (HT: Blue Virginia and Firedoglake)

Update

DCCC Chairman Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) put out a statement about the Danville plans:

These shocking and despicable acts are becoming all too common at extreme right-wing Republican rallies. Hanging Members in effigy or displaying images of Nazi concentration camps on the steps of the Capitol have no place in any debate and Republican Members of Congress must condemn these actions.

Security

Chinese Strateg-urrance

By Guest Blogger on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Our guest blogger is Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund

us-chinaEarlier this week, as he prepared to leave for Asia, President Obama called the U.S. relationship with China a “strategic partnership.” This is a big move. The term is an upgrade from President Bush’s label “constructive and cooperative and candid” and a far cry from Bush’s campaign term “strategic competitor.” President Obama’s comments are 100% certain to be met with accusations of appeasement and naivete by the not-always-so-loyal opposition. The neocons didn’t like the concept of “strategic reassurance” that Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg unveiled a few weeks ago, and spoke about at a recent event, and they are going to like this even less. But using this term before his first visit is a very smart move.

First, let’s be clear about what President Obama said and the context in which he said it. In response to a reporter’s question about how he views China, President Obama began by saying that he sees China as “a vital partner, as well as a competitor.” Later he stated that “on critical issues, whether climate change, economic recovery, nuclear non-proliferation, it’s very hard to see how we succeed or China succeeds in our respective goals without working together. And that is, I think, the purpose of the strategic partnership.”

So it is clear, in case you hear otherwise, that President Obama does not think China is our best friend. In addition to calling China a “competitor,” he went on to say that he raises human rights, “universal rights” he called them, in every meeting with the Chinese. We know that he hasn’t hesitated to anger Beijing when policy calls for that, as his controversial decision on trade sanctions on Chinese tires illustrates. In fact, the entire trip itinerary makes clear that China is only one element of US Asia policy. President Obama is strengthening our traditional alliances in Japan and South Korea, and finally getting the US in the game of multilateral diplomacy in APEC and ASEAN on which China has been running the tables over the last eight years.

Obama referred to a strategic partnership with China in the context of major transnational threats. China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon, its most dynamic large economy and a nuclear power that neighbors North Korea and buys more oil from Iran than any other country. If China isn’t our partner, then we are in trouble.

The problem is that China has not been a reliable partner. It has been reluctant to take the kind of proactive steps on global challenges that the US wants and needs it to. As I detail in a new report, China is very engaged in all the international institutions and very prepared at the international summits—and this is a big step in the right direction—but you can count on a couple of fingers the number of times China has taken proactive leadership on a global threat: (1) North Korea (but it took enormous and constant US pressure to get them to lead on the Six Party Talks) and (2) the avian and swine flu pandemics, but on those their active leadership has consisted of convening international conferences, not exactly a mind-blowing example of international problem-solving.

Beijing is not using its leverage with Iran to end its nuclear program, it has so far resisted agreeing to limits on its carbon emissions that would make a necessary global deal to address climate change possible, and the steps China is taking to move to a domestic-led growth model that will address global economic imbalances are welcome but too few and too slow.

What the Chinese will tell you is that they achieve a trusting relationship by, first, developing trust with their counterpart and only then doing things together. This is exactly reverse, they will say, of Americans, who want to get things done together and develop trust in the process. President Obama’s gesture gives China’s leaders some strategic reassurance that he has a positive view of the relationship. He is offering a modicum of pre-trust that the Chinese say they need. This is not weakness — it is clever diplomacy.

If, over time, the Chinese do not cooperate more deeply, then “strategic partnership” will fail to become an accurate description of the relationship. The term could end up just a blip in the historical fluctuations of US-China terminology. But instead I hope that, in a few years, it turns out to be a positive, accurate and unremarkable description of our relationship with China.

Yglesias

Can’t Fix Climate Without Fixing Land Use

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Given the ins-and-outs of legislative bargaining, I think it’s arguably for the best that draft climate legislation in the Senate doesn’t do much of anything about how we use land. But as Christopher Leinberger argues on the merits this is really a topic that can’t be avoided. 30 percent of emissions come from transportation and 40 percent come from buildings. Walkable urbanism can bring that way down:

We now know that walkable urban development–where most daily trips from home can be made by walking, bike, or transit and where houses unintentionally shares their heat with the next door neighbor–uses far less energy and emits far less GHGs than the conventional drivable sub-urban household. Drivable suburban households are dependent on their cars for nearly all trips from a house with all sides exposed to the elements. Research shows that these urban households use and emit one- to two-thirds of the energy and GHGs of a car-dependent suburban household. The Urban Land Institute estimates, following three studies, that transportation-only GHG emissions reduction from walkable urban development could reduce total GHG emissions by 10 to 20 percent by 2050 alone.

We need policy that promotes demand-mitigation measures so more Americans will use less energy and emit less GHGs by where and how they live, work, and recreate. The fact that there is pent-up market demand for low GHG-emitting pedestrian-friendly urban development makes this a relatively easy policy for consumers to accept to boot.

To put this perhaps another way, what makes these measures such winners as a climate strategy is that they’re cases where we have more GHG emissions than we otherwise might simply because we’re using the land in an economically inefficient way. Changing policies to allow denser development will boost economic growth and help offset less growth-friendly measures like higher electricity costs for industrial production.

Politics

Do Anti-Choice Conservatives Like Cantor And Gingrich Provide Elective Abortion Coverage To Their Employees?

By Lee Fang on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Yesterday, the Politico reported that the Republican National Committee provides a health insurance policy to its employees which covers elective abortions. The RNC’s platform considers elective abortions “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.” Reacting to the news today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said, “Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” and that “it will not exist under my administration.”

Conservatives are pressing forward with an effort to use health reform as a backdoor legislative effort to ban abortion coverage in the Exchange — and limit abortion services in existing employer-sponsored plans. However, an analysis of disclosure forms of right-wing organizations and lawmakers reveals that many anti-choice conservative leaders may provide insurance plans with elective abortions to their employees.

For instance, Newt Gingrich, like the RNC, has said he would like to outlaw abortions. According to IRS disclosure forms, Gingrich’s 527 attack organization American Solutions for Winning the Future provides health coverage to its employees through CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. According to its website, standard Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield policies cover elective abortions unless the employer specifically opts out.

House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), another staunch opponent of reproductive rights, also provides Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage to his campaign employees.

Both Gingrich and Cantor’s office have not responded to calls from ThinkProgress inquiring if either employer has canceled elective abortion coverage on their insurance coverage.

Alyssa

Questions & Answers

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:02 pm

So, you guys ask me a lot of questions about how I feel about things in comments and via email.  I love it.  Thank you.  But to get to as many of them as quickly as I can, I’m going to explain a bit of a system.  First, if I haven’t heard a song, I’ll get on that real fast and get back to you.  If I haven’t read a book or seen a television show or a movie, I’ll generally make a good-faith effort to get to it*, but I can’t make any promises on timing.  I do have a day job.  And you’ll get something ahead of Spooks in the queue when you pry the deliciousness that is Rupert Penry-Jones from my cold dead fingers.  Second, I’ll try to write whole posts when the occasion warrants.  And third, on weeks when work is crazy, I’m prepping for visits from parts of the Grape Drink Mafia, and you guys are making me think hard about a wide range of issues, I’ll do something like this:


From Megan Ruyle: Also, in terms of historical romances, how does Julia Quinn compare to Georgette Heyer? 


To be honest, it’s been a while since I read Arabella, the only Heyer novel that made a big impression on me.  But what I love about Julia Quinn is that her romance novels are pretty self-aware.  To be fair, everyone gets married because they’re caught in compromising positions.  Every woman’s first sexual experience is basically fantastic.  There are big set-piece parties.  All of the tropes of the genre are observed.  But they’re also very intentionally funny.  Take this passage from Romancing Mr. Bridgerton, after one of the main characters loses her bonnet, causing another main character to fall off his horse, and her to fall pretty much instantly in love with him: 

Later that night, as she replayed the encounter for about the thousandth time in her mind, it occurred to her that it would have been nice if she could have said that she’d fallen in love with him as he kissed her hand before a dance, his green eyes twinkling devilishly while his fingers held hers just a little more tightly than was proper.  Or maybe it could have happened as he rode boldly across a windswept moor, the (aforementioned) wind no deterrent as he (or rather his horse) galloped ever closer, his (Colin’s, not the horse’s) only intention to reach her side.

Awesome.  Mistreating women is thoroughly condemned.  And the female characters are fantastic.  They’re smart, they write and read (including romance novels, which they make a great deal of fun of), they are friends with each other instead of adversaries.  Quinn makes liberal use of her limited medical school experience.  So all comparisons to Georgette Heyer aside, Quinn is well worth checking out.


From Dara, on Glee: I know that there’s still so much more to unpack from that episode, but can we also talk about the music for a bit? 


Sure!  I’ll even let you do it, Dara, since you said it so well:

I’d been souring on the musical numbers since the mashup episode — especially the vocal performances, which I felt were sliding irrevocably toward Disney Channel blandness — but I loved all three of them this week. I’m a sucker for mellowed-out covers, so I was tickled pink by “Dancing with Myself,” but it was also a great showpiece for Artie’s rich-but-not-huge baritone/bass voice (the type high-school glee club solos aren’t written for in real life, either). Kurt performed the hell out of “Defying Gravity” (with an actor’s line-by-line specificity I haven’t seen in other numbers) and his tone — the only word I can think of is “woodwind” — complemented Rachel surprisingly well. And while the first half of “Rollin’ on the River” caused me to roll my eyes and ask the cosmos “When are they going to give Mercedes something that doesn’t scream ‘Mammy Soul’?”, the tempo change let her loosen up and sing like a normal high-school kid with great pipes. (And Santana Lopez had the ecstatic show-choir/Broadway “lit up” expression down pat.)

I also really, REALLY dug the “Proud Mary” cover.  Currently, my biggest complaint about Glee’s music is that the show isn’t giving Puck nearly enough to do.  Seriously, people.  Exhibit A in how much better Puck is vocally, and as a human being, than Finn:





It’s not just the Red Sox fan in me, people.  Boy’s got a nice set of pipes.  I agree that Mercedes should be given more to do in every aspect of the program, and that the show should do it without accompanying references to her “chocolate thunder.”  And now might be a good time to mention that the track list is out for the CD that’s going to accompany the second batch of episodes ordered by Fox.  Thoughts?  My personal wish is that Tina gets to sing “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going” to Artie, but I’d bet the chances of that are small.


From the invaluable Toolbit: Why do I feel like media wants me to like Eliza Dushku?


Because there’s this thing Joss Whedon does, where he gets it into his head that an actor is good at something.  Sometimes he’s right, as with Alyson Hannigan and comedy, or Nathan Fillion and roguishness.  Sometimes he’s disastrously wrong, as with David Boreanaz and drama (Dude was born to crack jokes with and stare winsomely at Emily Deschanel.  On another note, Bones has been on a roll, but we’ll get to that later.).  Sometimes he’s confusingly mistaken, as in his desire to make Dushku a leading actress, whens he does a lot better as a menacing/funny/redemptive sidekick.  The media wants to like what Joss Whedon likes, and believe what Joss Whedon believes, because he gave us some really pretty, fascinating toys to play with over the years.  When we find that hard, we tend to overcompensate.  The media want you to like Eliza Dushku because they don’t really like Eliza Dushku, but want to like Eliza Dushku, and they think if you do, it will be easier.


*At commenter agauntpanda’s request, I set up an Amazon.com wishlist thing that’s now in the sidebar.  I may be bribeable with regard to the order in which I read, watch, or listen to things if you send them to me.  If you do, I am guaranteed to be embarrassed, and blush a lot, and probably threaten to send you a hand-written thank you note.

Health

Republicans Don’t Care If Their Insurance Policy Covers Abortions

By Igor Volsky on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm

steele1Politico is reporting that “the Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991″:

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.” Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna. Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Of course Steele doesn’t know why “this policy existed in the past” for the same reason why Focus on the Family, one of the nation’s largest religious right organizations, didn’t know that it paid premiums to an insurance company that also offered abortion coverage: they don’t care. They’re using ‘abortion’ to manufacturing outrage, derail health reform and energize the pro-life base.

Even they don’t believe that purchasing insurance coverage that includes abortion is an abomination. Nor do they believe the argument made in the Stupak-Pitts amendment — that paying premiums to an insurance policy that offers abortion coverage is indirectly subsidizing abortion. As Steven Benen points out, while the RNC may have opted-out of the abortion benefit, it is still “taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.”

The Republican Party does not believe in the Stupak Amendment; it believes in opt-outs…

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up