ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Relax, climate hawks, it’s not about the science. The White House is just lousy at messaging in general

By Joe Romm on Mar 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Yes, my sources say the White House communications shop muzzled the Office of Science and Technology Policy from offering a robust defense of climate science after Climategate.  And yes, Obama has utterly failed to offer a strong, coherent message on climate science and related energy policy (see “Obama calls for massive boost in low-carbon energy, but doesn’t mention carbon, climate or warming“).

I’ve been as critical of Obama about this as anybody, and like you, have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t appear to get the dire nature of the situation we’re in.  But, in ‘fairness’ to the President, it must be pointed out that the White House sucks at messaging in general.

Look at their signature health care initiative.  Please tell me what their message is?  (see “Can Obama deliver health and energy security with a half (assed) message?“)  Yet, health care is an issue that everybody in the White House cares about, unlike, say, climate, which beyond Obama and Holdren and, formerly, Browner, is of little political interest to almost all other senior WH staff.

Based on my discussions with leading journalists, as well as current and former Administration staff, this White House is the worst at communications in the past 3 decades.  Indeed, the Obama WH is the worst of both possible worlds.  They are dreadful at messaging BUT they think they are terrific at messaging, so much so that they shut down anybody else in the administration that might actually be good at messaging.

And that brings me to Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus and her op-ed today, “President Waldo:  Barack Obama is often strangely absent from the most important debates.”  Here are some highlights (lowlights?):

Read more

Yglesias

Interests and Ideas

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 2, 2011 at 4:29 pm

Well-said from Jonathan Chait on the idea that you can draw a rigorous distinction between the Koch Brothers’ ideological commitments and their self-interest:

It seems to me that the line between “ideas” and “interests” is, at best, a lot less clear than Balko makes it out to be. Libertarianism is an idea with many possible interpretations. The notion that corporations should be able to pollute the commons with harmful greenhouse gases at no cost whatsoever is just one such interpretation, and not necessarily the most natural one. Likewise, the notion that reducing the size of government is best achieved by, or even rationally related to, debt-financed regressive tax cuts is also highly contestable. Yet these are interpretations that are very congenial to the Koch brothers’ bottom line, and they’re also the interpretations promoted by Koch-financed groups. So this presumed dichotomy between their narrow interests and their belief in libertarian ideas seems to be a pretty shaky concept.

To emphasize the audacity of the Kochs’ intellectual aspirations, not that it says in the Road to Serfdom that you need “direct regulation by authority” of air pollution unless you can get cap-and-trade system off the ground. Similarly, it was Milton Friedman who coined the phrase “to spend is to tax”, thus rejecting the notion that debt-financed tax cuts are an effective means of reducing the size of government. Those guys have Nobel Prizes. That the conventional wisdom in American right-wing politics disagrees with Hayek and Friedman has a great deal to do with the influence of wealthy individual donors and fossil fuel interests, prominently including the Koch brothers.

Alyssa

Beach Views

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Mar 2, 2011 at 4:28 pm

It may be because I spent last fall buying an apartment, but I am slightly addicted to Million Dollar Listing. The show’s in its fourth season, and it’s definitely not one of Bravo’s bigger hits—I hadn’t heard of it before promos started popping up during other shows I was watching, which is unusual. I know I’d heard of more minor shows like Tabatha’s Salon Takeover before I ever saw an episode. Maybe it’s just that the show lives in the shadow of Flipping Out—its an ensemble show with younger real estate pros than Jeff Lewis, so it just may not be as high-profile.

Some of it is just the real estate porn factor, of course. It’s easy to lose a winter afternoon dreaming of infinity pools, and Malibu beachfront views, and freestanding gas powered fireplaces in the middle of sleek, airy rooms. Because the real estate is so completely over the top, I don’t feel any particular jealousy for the people who are buying and selling these properties. In truth, I even feel a little sorry for the people who are putting their homes on the market. They’re universally disappointed by the prices they’re getting, and a lot of them are putting houses on the market they obviously don’t want to sell.

And the realtors themselves are a twitchy, sharky lot. Josh Flagg, who was arrested for but never charged with stealing artwork from a client as the first season went on air, is a flake: he’s very sweet to his Holocaust-survivor grandmother, and leans towards schtick like signing up blonde twins as his interns. Josh Altman is Boston-born and overdressed for the areas where he’s selling, with perpetually hooded eyes and a smile that shows a lot of teeth but no particular warmth (in a very smart little example of integration between shows, one of the husbands of a Real Housewife of Beverly Hills shows up in partnership with Altman periodically). And Madison Hildebrand is perpetually tanned and beach-casual, but he’s anxious—about listings, about how out he wants to be, about his ex-boyfriend, about the perceptions of his competition.

I think there’s an element of schadenfreude in all of this, seeing that the rich are as stressed out about real estate as the middle class, and that the people who are in charge of these ridiculous transactions are as twitchy as they are. Watching them sweat ameliorates a lot of envy.

Politics

Rep. Trent Franks Calls For Impeaching Obama If He Doesn’t Reverse Course On The Defense Of Marriage Act

By Scott Keyes on Mar 2, 2011 at 4:20 pm

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Tea Party Patriots Policy Summit in Phoenix, AZ.

For the hard right, there is no shortage of reasons to impeach President Obama.

Last year, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) hinted at impeaching the president over the issue of immigration, saying that Obama was “awfully close” to violating his oath of office. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) followed up by threatening impeachment proceedings against Obama because of the phantom “birth certificate” issue.

Now, in the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.

After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support”:

KEYES: What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don’t reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?

FRANKS: That’s probably the strongest leverage that we have. [...]

KEYES: Is defunding, using that threat of defunding DOJ, something you would support?

FRANKS: Absolutely. I would support that in a moment. [...]

KEYES: I know Newt Gingrich has came out and said if they don’t reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?

FRANK: If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts.

Watch it:

Franks is not alone in his impeachment-zeal. GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have both hinted at impeaching Obama if he does not back down on DOMA, with Cain saying Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA is “bordering on treason.” Gingrich, who helped lead the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, immediately backtracked on the impeachment issue.

LGBT

Tony Perkins: Gay Relationships Are Harmful, Endanger ‘Physical Health’

By Igor Volsky on Mar 2, 2011 at 4:00 pm

As House Republicans prepare to give in to the demands of anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage — both of which are pressuring Republicans to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act — FRC’s Tony Perkins has a new letter to the editor in USA Today laying out his organization’s case for prohibiting the government from recognizing gay couples:

The biggest trophy that gay activists now seek is the redefinition of marriage. Currently, only five states allow same-sex marriages. How can a team leading 45-5 be losing? Where the people have decided, 31 out of 31 states have upheld marriage as a male-female union. A 31-game winning streak rarely signals a losing season.

Krattenmaker urges adherence to “a foundational Christian principle: Treat others as you wish to be treated.” I agree.

If family members saw that I engaged in behavior that put my physical health at risk, I would expect them to warn me. If my closest friends believed I was in a harmful relationship, I would want them to help me escape it. If I were falling into sin, I would want other Christians to call me to repentance.

We will continue to speak the truth (even hard truths) with love (sometimes tough love). But we will not be silent.

In other words, Perkins — whose organization attracts prominent Republican speakers at the annual Values Voters Summit — is not only regurgitating the completely discredited and embarrassing argument that homosexuality is a health risk, but he’s also arguing that sanctifying gay relationships in monogamous marriage would endanger one’s “physical health.”

Marriages may not guarantee fidelity (or protect one from sexual diseases), but they certainly encourage it. As Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper put it, “if stewarding sexuality in a way that reduces the social conservatives’ lists of horribles is truly the goal, then groups like FRC should be DEMANDING marriage equality, not banning the same.”

Climate Progress

Chinas coal policy is breathtakingly self-destructive

By Climate Guest Blogger on Mar 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm

China EIA

Back in 2007, I wrote that “the immorality of China’s coal policy is breathtaking (literally).”  Sadly, even as it has become the world leader in clean energy, China’s self-destructive coal policy continues unabated.  China’s CO2 emissions now surpass ours by some 40%!

Our cumulative emissions greatly exceed theirs, of course, so I’m not diminishing America’s culpability in the coming climate catastrophe at all. But their CO2 growth rate is staggering whereas ours is mostly stagnating.

Moreover, the impacts of unrestricted CO2 emissions will surely be much harder on their country than ours, and not just because they are poorer with vastly more people.  They are very reliant on inland glaciers that will likely all but vanish this century.

They are vastly more vulnerable to food insecurity. We’re the breadbasket for the world, with vast surplus agricultural production, whereas they might have to import wheat this year if their current extreme drought continues.  They already import staggering amounts of soybeans.

Why have China’s emissions risen so rapidly?  That question is examined in a fascinating analysis from CO2ScoreCard, that I excerpt at length, below.

Read more

Politics

Coburn Won’t Support Gingrich For President: ‘We Need Somebody That’s…Stable’

By Ben Armbruster on Mar 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm

The Des Moines Register reported yesterday that Newt Gingrich will announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on Thursday in Atlanta, GA. However, a Gingrich spokesperson has since clarified that the former Speaker “will NOT announce the formation of an exploratory committee.” Politico sorted through the confusion today, reporting that “Gingrich is likely to confirm his ‘intention to announce,’ but not actually unveil an exploratory committee.” But before the Gingrich team walk back, C-SPAN host Greta Wodele Brawner asked Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) what he thought of Gingrich running for president and Coburn didn’t seem to be too enthused:

COBURN: He is undoubtedly the smartest man I’ve ever met. He is a thinker. He has great vision. The question to me is, does he have the capability to lead the country and having served under him in the House, he’s probably not one I would choose to support in a presidential primary. … We need somebody that’s soft and wide eyed open and is stable and is learned and is going to consistently bring us together rather than alienate us. … We need somebody whose eye is critical but is not harsh in their manner and I don’t mean to say he’s necessarily harsh. But I’m looking for a leader that can bring us together.

Watch it:

Coburn is right; Gingrich hasn’t exactly done much to bring the country together lately, whether it’s fearmongering about Islam or engaging in “not-so-subtle race baiting” and inflammatory rhetoric.

Update

Fox News has reportedly suspended the contracts of Gingrich and former GOP senator Rick Santorum, who are contributors to the network, because they have demonstrated interest in running for president. Given this reasoning, it is unclear why the network hasn’t suspended Mike Huckabee’s contract with Fox.

Yglesias

Systematic Misinformation About Responsibility

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 2, 2011 at 3:29 pm

I think public ignorance about political facts probably isn’t that big a problem. But I worry more about the idea that people don’t know who’s in charge of what. Feelings about George W Bush and Barack Obama seem to drive state legislative elections and my intuition is that people don’t realize how small a role the federal government plays in education policy.

Bryan Caplan uses survey data to test this theory and finds that it’s quite true:

Systematically biased attributional beliefs turn out to be common and large. Fully 14 out of 16 survey questions exhibit statistically significant biases. Compared to experts in American politics, the public greatly overestimates the influence of state and local governments on the economy, the president and Congress on the quality of public education, the Federal Reserve on the budget, Congress on the Iraq War, and the Supreme Court on crime rates. The public also moderately underestimates the influence of the Federal Reserve on the economy, state and local governments on public education, and the president and Congress on the budget. While we are open to the possibility that non-cognitive factors explain observed belief gaps, controlling for demographics and various measures of self-serving and ideological bias does little to alter our results. A full set of controls reduces the absolute magnitude of the raw belief gaps by less than 13% – and leaves the number of statistically significant lay-expert differences unchanged.

There’s a lot you could say about this, but for starters I think the political media could do a little soul-searching over this. It seems to me that the news stories I read about presidential campaigns and clashes in congress very much engage in these errors. People routinely cover state politicians’ proclamations about economic growth strategy without noting state government’s relative impotence in this area, the Fed is invariably slighted in stories about political fights over the national economy, editors’ story selection choices give a very misleading view of what kinds of issues the Supreme Court decides, etc.

Security

Phoenix Police Department Forced To Admit That Its Border-Related Kidnapping Statistics Are ‘Exaggerated’

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Mar 2, 2011 at 3:10 pm

This past summer, I wrote about a former kidnapping investigator for the Phoenix Police Department who claimed that the his employer “inflat[ed] its kidnapping numbers, possibly to get federal stimulus money.” In 2008 the Phoenix Police Department reported 358 kidnappings. In 2010, those kidnapping statistics garnered at least $2.45 million in federal funds towards the Phoenix Police Department. They were also often cited by politicians — including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — who repeatedly claimed that Phoenix is the “second kidnapping capital of the world” to defend the state’s tough immigration law.

Yet, according to Sgt. Phil Roberts, only 20 to 30 “traditional” kidnappings occurred in Phoenix in 2008 — a range which more closely resembles that of surrounding cities. In February, a Phoenix New Times analysis of the reported kidnappings showed that “only about one out of every four incidents labeled as kidnappings in 2008 appeared connected to border-related crimes.”

Nonetheless, the Phoenix Police Department adamantly denied Roberts’ allegations up until this week when they were forced to admit that the border-related kidnappings statistics are inaccurate. Yesterday, the Phoenix Police released a statement backing away from the kidnapping numbers:

As a result of the audit, the department has determined that there are reports that do not belong in these statistics. The Phoenix Police Department has determined that there are also numerous other existing reports that were not included within the kidnapping statistics, but should have been. Therefore, the audit has identified challenges with how cases are classified within case management.

One city councilwoman claims that police officials have known the figures were wrong since August 2010, but continued to deny allegations that they weren’t for months. Phoenix’s ABC 15 acquired an audio recording in which the Phoenix Police Department’s Lt. Lauri Burgett stated, “Commander Klima and I found out early on that the information and statistics he was putting out, it was exaggerated.” Meanwhile, it is still unclear whether the numbers were purposefully inflated by the Phoenix Police Department.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up