ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Bolton On Running For President In 2012: ‘I’m Not Saying No’

Earlier this week, when the Daily Caller asked neoconservative war hawk John Bolton if he wanted to run for president in 2012, the former (recess-appointed) U.N. ambassador wouldn’t rule out the possibility. “You know, as somebody who writes op-eds and appears on the television, I appreciate as well as anybody that…there is a limit to what that accomplishes,” he said. But today on Fox News, Bolton indicated that he’s getting more interested in making a run for the White House, saying, “I’m not saying ‘no’”:

HOST: Are you running for president in 2012?

BOLTON: Well it’s a great honor when people ask me that question and I have been asked that question. I don’t think anybody involved in politics should worry about that until after the elections this fall because I think they’re so important. So that’s to the extent I get involved, that’s where I’m going to put my focus for now.

HOST: So you’re not saying no?

BOLTON: I’m not saying no, that’s right.

Watch it:

“What concerns me,” Bolton told the Daily Caller, “is the lack of focus generally in the national debate about national security issues.” ThinkProgress would be eager to witness Bolton campaign on his ideas:

Bomb Iran, (or at least allow Israel to do it) and change the regime.

– Endless wars (because “we’re not going to eliminate violent conflict until homo sapiens ceases to exist as a separate species”).

– Invade Somalia? Nuke Chicago?

One thing is clear. If Bolton does decide to run for president, he probably won’t have the support of his former boss.

Climate Progress

Arctic sea ice area and volume drop near record lows

WattsUpWithThat breaks its own record for fastest overturning of a prediction by reality

Sea ice area 8-10

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA, click to enlarge) has a widely used plot of sea ice area.

The notion that the Arctic sea ice was somehow on a long-term recovery trend based on a short-term two-dimensional analysis (i.e. sea ice area or extent just over the last 2 years) — had no basis in fact.  That goes double (triple?) when you look at three dimensions (i.e. volume) over a multi-year period, as I’ll discuss below.

Read more

Yglesias

Open-Ended Wars

hires_100901-N-0696M-208 1

Victor Davis Hanson reacts to Obama’s speech:

Obama warns against “open-ended wars,” as if they are almost animate things. But wars end, not when they reach a rational, previously agreed-upon expiration date, but usually when tough, specific wartime choices are made that lead to victory or end in defeat. One party must decide – for good or bad reasons – that it doesn’t want to fight to win, or simply doesn’t believe it has the resources for victory. To say that “open-ended wars” are undesirable is a banality that offers no guidance for these real-life choices. A better truism is that America should not fight wars it does not intend to win.

This seems to me like an exercise in pretending to not understand what the President was talking about. The essence of the situation in Iraq from 2004-2010 was that our policy was stuck in a recursive loop. We couldn’t leave Iraq because we hadn’t won the war. Winning the war would entail defeating our enemies. Our enemies were the people driving us out of the country. Therefore we could leave Iraq when and only when we succeeded in killing the people who wanted us to leave. It was nuts. It was a recipe for open-ended warfare. It’s coming to an end. That’s a good thing.

Alyssa

Harry Potter’s Moral Complexity

I did a rotten job on Monday of explaining why I think the Harry Potter universe isn’t terribly morally complex, and I felt like I owed it to y’all to go back and try to parse out the issues with a little more clarity. Wise Bass, for example, writes:


Voldemort, for example, is a monster, but an understandable monster with very human motives – he’s driven by his fear of death and worthlessness. He gets away with a lot because there’s a significant vein of racism in the wizarding society as portrayed, which gets touched upon in earlier books before getting really shown in the final book.



And Jacob chimes in:

There are multiple hierarchies of morality and evil in the books.



You have the supervillainy Voldemort (who as Wise Bass points out has his motivations)

A step down you have people motivated by fear but torn by doubts (like Malfoy Jr. and Peter).

Then you have the bureaucrats, who personify the banality of evil. People like Delores Umbridge who have fit into every organization they’ve been in and in a dry and boring fashion commit terrible acts.

Then you have people like Snape who even though you find out are on the side of good are quite nasty personally.

Finally you have everyday wizarding people who are basically descent people but who put up with causal racism against non-human species and seemed fine to accept the Thicknesse regime.

Again, I’m not saying they’re perfect books but saying they have a “rather simple understandings of good [and] evil” is just wrong.




All of which is true. The books are sophisticated about the levels of commission of evil (and I actually think one of their geniuses is in opening up bureaucracy for young readers, and making it both a source of great good and evil). What they are not sophisticated about is the question of whether Voldemort is right. Voldemort is always wrong. There is no case to be made that his point of view, or wizard dominance, or a wizard crusade to not have to hide from Muggles, could possibly correct. Collaborators who are coerced, like Theophilus Lovegood, or by the end Narcissa Malfoy, are pathetic, rather than sympathetic. 


And you know, for some issues, that’s totally fine. I’m glad there’s a societal consensus about the wrongness of racism, or the hideous evil of the Nazis. The Harry Potter books are about the work of being courageous in sticking to a correct decision when that decision brings about difficult and dispiriting consequences, not about the moral work of arriving at a correct decision in the first place when there are two genuinely competitive options available. Most of us will never be in the first position, so I do think it’s relatively easy to do the imaginative work of sympathizing with Harry and considering how the people who support Voldemort should be judged and treated. But we’ll all be in the second position at some point in our lives, whether choosing between political parties, dealing with an unethical situation in our personal lives or at work. So I tend to think presenting two truly competing options and having readers, particularly young readers, puzzle out a side requires more and more relevant work. But the Harry Potter books are not unsophisticated, and I certainly don’t see them that way.

Security

Alleged Gunman’s Manifesto Echoes Anti-Immigrant Groups’ Malthusian Screed

James Jay Lee

James Jay Lee

This afternoon, a gunman entered the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, MD and appears to have taken at least one person hostage. Among his various bizarre, eco-related demands, one relates directly to immigration. The alleged hostage-taker, James Jay Lee, calls for the elimination of “anchor baby filth” and “immigration pollution”:

Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

Lee’s immigration screed bears a troubling resemblance to views and policies espoused by anti-immigrant groups such as NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Progressives for Immigration Reform, and others. Just this past month, FAIR released “The Environmentalist’s Guide to a Sensible Immigration Policy.” The report connects immigration to “pollution, sprawl, congestion, and ecological degradation,” complaining that “so-called environmentalists pretend as if this connection does not exist.” As usual, FAIR prescribes an overall reduction in immigration as the solution to the country’s environmental woes (in slightly more diplomatic terms).

Last month, The Nation published a story explaining the history behind the “greenwashing” of “nativism”:

Population stabilization has been taboo for progressive greens since the late 1970s. But anti-immigrationists like FAIR founder John Tanton, a former Sierra Club activist, cut their teeth on the overpopulation anxiety that permeated the environmental movement earlier in that decade. Subsequently, they used the Malthusian lingo of resource scarcity, carrying capacity (the maximum population an environment can sustain indefinitely) and overshoot (when a population exceeds its carrying capacity) to launder the image of the white nationalists with whom they became allies. When climate change became a public issue, it gave fresh impetus to what population specialist Betsy Hartmann has called the “greening of hate.”

CIS and other FAIR spinoffs like NumbersUSA and Population-Environment Balance, along with the sympathetic Carrying Capacity Network, have all touted immigration as the chief reason for the rise in greenhouse gas emissions—as low-carbon immigrants adopted the high-carbon lifestyles of the rich countries to which they had moved.

It’s not a coincidence that many of these are amongst the same groups that have always supported changing the 14th amendment to deny “anchor babies,” or the American-born children of undocumented immigrants, citizenship — long before the debate entered the political mainstream this summer. FAIR’s legal arm, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is also responsible for authoring Arizona’s recently passed immigration law.

Studies by “so-called environmentalists” actually show that “immigrants, in essence, are doing precisely what planners want the rest of us to do.” UCLA professor Ali Modarres recently found that, compared to Americans, more immigrants walk, bike, bus, or metro to work and fewer drive cars in the state of California.

Politics

Purported Eco-Terrorist Angered Over ‘Immigration Pollution And Anchor Baby Filth’

James Jay Lee

James Jay Lee

This afternoon, a gunman entered the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, MD and appears to have taken at least one person hostage. Among his various bizarre, eco-related demands, one relates directly to immigration. The alleged hostage-taker, James Jay Lee, calls for the elimination of “anchor baby filth” and “immigration pollution”:

Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

Lee’s immigration screed bears a troubling resemblance to views and policies espoused by anti-immigrant groups such as NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Progressives for Immigration Reform, and others. Just this past month, FAIR released “The Environmentalist’s Guide to a Sensible Immigration Policy.” The report connects immigration to “pollution, sprawl, congestion, and ecological degradation,” complaining that “so-called environmentalists pretend as if this connection does not exist.” As usual, FAIR prescribes an overall reduction in immigration as the solution to the country’s environmental woes (in slightly more diplomatic terms).

It’s not a coincidence that many of these are amongst the same groups that have always supported changing the 14th amendment to deny “anchor babies,” or the American-born children of undocumented immigrants, citizenship — long before the debate entered the political mainstream this summer. Read more about Lee and the anti-immigrant environmental movement at the Wonk Room.

Update

On his MySpace page, Lee notes that he listens to “70′s and some 80′s” music. “I also like a lot of Spanish music,” he adds.

Yglesias

Germany’s Recovery

This isn’t even really what his column is about, but this chart from Martin Wolf is worth looking at with regard to recent coverage of Germany’s rapid growth:

recoveryinternational

Several points about this. I don’t think we should be giving any country credit for impressive recovery until they at least re-obtain pre-crisis GDP levels. The more ambitious goal of pre-crisis GDP per capita might be even better. What’s more, German economic performance across the duration of the crisis has not, in fact, been any more impressive than America’s. What does look better is the German unemployment situation, which sadly isn’t depicted in this graph.

If you look at the contrasting trajectories between unemployment and productivity in the US and Germany I think we’re getting to the real moral of the story here. The Obama administration’s fiscal policies were deliberately designed to maximize GDP rather than employment, on the theory that the specific allocation of labor market resources is best left to the market. German policies like kurzarbeit did the reverse. And thus far both countries have gotten what they asked for—America has a higher GDP and better productivity growth than Germany, but Germany spent less money and has less unemployment. The question is what will look better in the long-run which has now entered “only time will tell” territory. But it’s a strange coincidence of fate and partisanship that in the US we mostly have right-of-center people praising Merkel’s approach and left-of-center defending Obama’s when German-style direct labor market interventions would normally be considered too left-wing for the Democratic Party in this country.

Health

New Lawsuit Against Health Law Claims Reform Is ‘Compelling Participation In The Secular Religion Of Socialism’

peoplevus1A group of conservative activists in Nevada have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a handful of Nevadans who oppose the health care law and “all persons in the United States of America who object to being forced to participate in the PPACA.” The group, PeopleV.US, claims that the health care law “violates 60% of the Bill of Rights” and describes its challenge as “the most comprehensive suit filed against the Act.” The effort is being funded by Tony Dane, a Nevada businessman “who runs a robocalling firm and helped GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle get elected to the state assembly.”

The lawsuit regurgitates some of the familiar claims that the individual mandate violates the commerce clause and the 10th amendment of the constitution, but also adds some new charges [Read the full complaint HERE]:

- The PPACA violates the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution by compelling Plaintiffs herein to fund abortion in contravention of sincerely held religious beliefs.

- The PPACA violates the Constitution because the federal government lacks legal authority under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to deprive Plaintiffs herein of the liberty right to refuse to divulge medical confidences to a private insurer or its agent, to obtain health insurance; to not receive medical treatment or treatment of a particular kind; and to not pay for unwanted treatment; and to receive treatment of their own choosing.

- The PPACA violates the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution’s prohibition against involuntary servitude because it involuntarily creates a debt and coerces Plaintiffs herein to work off the debt by threat of legal sanction.

- The PPACA violates the First Amendment of the Constitution’s prohibition against the government’s establishment of religion by establishing, promoting and compelling participation in the secular religion of Socialism.

The suit also asks some key questions: “Does the PPACA violate the Privacy Rights of Plaintiffs under the case of Roe v. Wade by allowing the government to control their private health care decisions and giving the government control over Plaintiffs’ bodies?,” “Does the PPACA set up a government sponsored secular religion in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?.”

The latter receives full treatment, with references to Karl Marx and Lenin:

See also “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg, Broadway Books, 2009, which points out that fascistic socialism has become the U.S. state religion in America, beginning with Woodrow Wilson and continuing to the present.

137. As Trotsky wrote: “Marx is the prophet with the tables of the law and Lenin the greatest executor of the testament” (see the report at the Seventh All Russian Party conference of April 5th, 1923 as published in LENIN by Blue Ribbon Books, New York,1925).

Trotsky was second in authority only to Lenin in 1923 and even he calls Marx a prophet, comparing him to Moses with the tables of the law see (Ex. 24: 12) and Lenin becomes the executor of that religion’s new “testament.”

These statements of Trotsky must be given “great weight”:

In such an intensely personal area, of course, the claim of the registrant that his belief is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight.

The lawsuit lists the INDEPENDENT AMERICAN PARTY OF NEVADA and the NEVADA EAGLE FORUM as plaintiffs — the groups are “devoted to the preservation of constitutional/conservative values and oppose socialism, marxism, fascism, and any such form of state religion or government controlled health care” — and specific individuals, Dane included, who “object to the PPACA because it is the establishment of Socialism as a civil / secular religion, and compels participation in this state sponsored religion by way of the Individual Mandate and the shared responsibility payment.”

All in all, the usual Tea Party arguments about the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment fade into the background of this rather colorful document and one wonders if and when Sharron Angle will join the cause, given her connections to its backer.

Politics

Koch-Funded Organizations Launch New ‘Rally For Jobs’ Campaign To Protect Big Oil Profits

finalpicAs ThinkProgress and others have reported, Koch Industries and its billionaire owners, Charles and David Koch, have played a leading role in the apparently successful effort by polluters to stymie Senate passage of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.

Not content to simply stop progress, however, the Koch brothers and various Koch-funded organizations have also been actively trying to roll back existing clean air and clean energy laws — both at the state and national levels. David Koch, who lives in New York City and whose company is based in Kansas, is secretly bankrolling the Proposition 23 effort to roll back California’s landmark clean energy law. Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity helped make opposition to “cap-and-trade” a Tea Party talking point and then launched its so-called “Regulation Reality” tour to attack Supreme Court-mandated Clean Air Act regulations being finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Today, a new Koch-backed national effort to protect the energy industry, dubbed “Rally for Jobs,” begins with rallies in Texas and will continue next week with events in New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio. While the American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil’s Washington lobbying arm, is the “presenting sponsor” of the Rally for Jobs tour, several Koch-backed groups are also involved:

FreedomWorks, whose Koch-founded precursor, Citizens for a Sound Economy, received some $5.7 million from Koch foundations.
Americans for Prosperity, which received at least $5.1 million from Koch Foundations from 2005-2008 and is an offshoot of the Koch-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, which itself received more than $6 million from Koch foundations.
• The American Highway Users Alliance, of which Koch Industries is a member.
Americans for Tax Reform, which received $60,000 from Koch Foundations from 1997-2008.
• The Institute for Policy Innovation, which received $35,000 from Koch foundations.
• The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, of which Koch Industries is a member.
• The National Taxpayers Union, which has received $20,000 from Koch foundations.
• The Natural Gas Supply Association, of which Koch Industries appears to be a member.
• The Texas Prosperity Project, on whose board of directors sits Bill Oswald, Government & Regulatory Affairs Director at Koch Industries.
• The Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, which recently held an event sponsored by Flint Hills Resources, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries.

The Rally for Jobs tour is the latest astroturf attempt by Koch and the rest of Big Oil to use the economic anxiety gripping the nation to stave off any new attempts to crack down on the industry’s emissions and to block new accountability measures in the wake of the BP oil disaster. The front group’s website uses standard energy industry boilerplate repeating the false claim that increased energy use and economic prosperity are inexorably linked:

More energy equals more jobs, higher incomes and greater economic growth. We must come together to tell Washington that our livelihoods depend on the oil and natural gas industry and consumers who rely on access to affordable energy will not be overlooked.

Just yesterday, the Center for American Progress released a report showing that a concerted national energy efficiency program (i.e using less energy, not more) could create 625,000 sustained jobs over ten years, spark $500 billion in investment, and save ratepayers $64 billion that they could then use more productively.

The Rally for Jobs website also implies that the federal government is blocking energy production and somehow threatening jobs, presumably referring to the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil industry and some elected officials have been fearmongering over the moratorium for months, but a front page New York Times article from last week noted that job losses as a result of the drilling ban have simply “failed to materialize.” Further underscoring how unreliable the claims of the oil industry often turn out to be, just two of the 33 deepwater rigs idled by the moratorium have actually left the Gulf.

It seems that politics and the fall election may also have played a role in selecting the tour’s stops. Canton, Ohio and Mokena, Illinois, the sites of two stops next week, are not generally known for their role in oil production, but they do happen to be home to vulnerable freshman House Democrats–both of whom voted for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation last year. Indeed, Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, noted that “we have always encouraged our employees to engage in political activities.”

If this all sounds strangely familiar, it’s because many of the same Koch-backed groups participated in a nearly identical effort last summer. The so-called “Energy Citizens” campaign was widely mocked as the height of energy industry astroturfing, especially after documents were uncovered showing that 15 of the 21 Energy Citizens events were actually planned by oil industry lobbyists.

It seems that when it comes to astroturf groups protecting polluters, almost all roads eventually lead back to the “Kochtopus.”

Yglesias

In Defense of Non-Specificity

225px-John_Boehner_official_portrait

James Joyner is disappointed with the GOP leadership and thinks “the party must run on specific proposals in order to garner the leverage necessary to roll back the last few years of Democratic excesses.”

Unfortunately, despite a series of “Establishment” Republicans being sent packing by the base, all the signs so far indicate that McConnell and Co. just want to get their power back, not to actually do anything with it. Boehner’s been better, but the resistance to campaigning on a theme of, say, Paul Ryan’s Roadmap is unmistakable. The party need not endorse the specifics of Ryan’s plan in every particular to set forth a plan of action along those lines.

Kevin Drum agrees but sees cowardice: “if they did that, they’d lose. The public doesn’t want to hear about spending cuts except in the most general, stemwinding terms, and a concrete plan of action ‘along those lines’ would be massively unpopular with the electorate.”

I don’t really agree with Joyner’s line of reasoning. One of my takeaways from the 2007-2009 experience is that the idea of trying to get politicians to run on specific commitments is vastly overrated. There are just way too many steps between legislative inputs and outputs for these kind of things to have any real meaning. Whether or not Boehner wants to endorse the Ryan Roadmap it’s obvious enough that Barack Obama is not going to sign a Medicare privatization bill into law. What I’d be more interested in seeing the answers to some more thematic questions. For example, in addition to the endless nutty investigations, the 1995-2000 years saw a lot of legislating on fairly important topics. There was the welfare reform bill, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the creation of SCHIP, etc. What does Boehner think of those years? Did congressional Republicans give away the store in a way he’s determined to avoid? Or did they squander the opportunity to do even more bipartisan legislating with run-amok investigations?

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up