ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Barack Obama

Climate Progress

Obama Tweets Study Of 97% Scientific Consensus On Manmade Warming, WashPost Confused On What That Means

The story seems simple enough.

First, on Wednesday a study came out that found 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It was by our friends at Skeptical Science, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli.

Then on Thursday, President Obama tweeted the study to his 31,000,000 (!) followers:

So how does the ever-shrinking Washington Post report the story? With the headline, “Obama tweet gets Australian researcher 31.5 million followers on Twitter.” #FAIL

And just to be clear that the WashPost is in fact as confused and innumerate as their headline suggests, the story asserts:

That tweet, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, led 31,541,507 people to decide to follow Australian climate change researcher John Cook on Twitter.

The Herald didn’t, however, make such a transparently silly claim. Their headline read, “Obama gives Aussie researcher 31,541,507 reasons to celebrate.”

Ten seconds on the interwebs will reveal that Cook has 6,560 followers. But then we’ve suspected for a while that the Washington Post doesn’t employ any fact checkers. Nor does it have a single editor who understood enough about social media to realize instantly that the headline — and hence the story — must be wrong.

No wonder the MSM is collapsing in the face of the new media onslaught. Note: As of Saturday morning, the story is still uncorrected.

Security

Senator Introduces Post-Benghazi Embassy Security Funding Bill

(Credit: AP)

A Democratic senator on Thursday introduced a new bill to boost security at U.S. embassies in the aftermath of an attack on a diplomatic outpost in Libya last year.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) serves as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a role he inherited as the “scandal” over the Obama administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi, Libya was reaching one of its many peaks in January. Today on the Senate floor, Menendez castigated his colleagues who believed that the Senate had not done enough to investigate Benghazi, reminding them that there have been 11 hearings in Congress on the matter since September. “We have fully vetted this issue,” Menendez said.

The focus “should not be to score political points at the expense of the families of the four victims,” he went on to say. “It should be on doing all we can to protect our personnel serving overseas and provide the necessary oversight and legislative authority to carry out the administrative review board’s recommendations.” With that in mind, Menendez introduced the Embassy Security and Personnel Protection Act of 2013, a bill he hoped would be “able to count on the support of all of our colleagues to enact this crucial, time-sensitive legislation without delay, without obstruction, without political grandstanding.”

The bill would provide further funding to the Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program, first instituted in 1998 to boost security to “high-risk, high-threat” diplomatic posts and has since been chronically underfunded. Under the new legislation, the program would be able to build far more than the two to three facilities a year for the two dozen posts that fall into the high-risk, high-threat category. It would also provide funding for implementing a shift in the mission of Marine Corps security guards posted at U.S. embassies to protect staffers as well as classified assets. The bill would also require the State Department to provide verification to Congress of it fully putting into place its Accountability Review Board (ARB) on Benghazi’s recommendations for improvement.

Diplomatic security has been given a short-shrift in the aftermath of Benghazi. During her appearance before the Senate in January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to persuade Congress to shift $1.3 billion in funding bookmarked for warfighting in Iraq towards providing for greater diplomatic security. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) shepherded legislation through the Senate fulfilling Clinton’s request, but the bill died in the House. Since then, most of the conversation surrounding Benghazi has focused almost exclusively on the Obama administration’ss supposed cover-up, no matter how many documents are released debunking the claim.
Read more

Security

Senate Majority Leader Won’t Block Obama On Syria No-Fly Zone

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has one of the quietest, yet potentially most important, forces in the debate to intervene in the Syrian civil war given Congress’ power to declare war. Today, Reid provided the clearest picture yet of his position. In short: While Reid is wary of getting more involved in Syria, if the President wants to go to war, Reid said he won’t need Senate authorization to do it.

At a roundtable interview for reporters on Wednesday, ThinkProgress asked Reid whether or not President Obama could impose a no-fly zone — that is, use military force against Syrian air assets to prevent them from bombing rebel forces and civilians — without explicit Congressional permission, meaning either a declaration of war or explicit authorization for the use of military force. The Senator strongly cautioned against getting more deeply involved in Syria, but implied it was ultimately the President’s call:

We have about 80,000 people dead, Assad’s a war criminal – and if there is this peace conference, and I hope it works, part of the deal has to be that he’s gone. I don’t think at this stage [pause] less than ten percent of the deaths caused by the non-regime forces are caused by helicopters and missiles. That’s still a lot of people, but I’m not going to run the President’s foreign policy, we know that there are a lot of countries, a significant number of countries providing weapons there, and we’re doing a lot of food, medical supplies, and things of those [sic] nature. We have to be very careful about how we proceed down the next step.

A Senate Democratic aide clarified to ThinkProgress that Reid would defer to the President on both the advisability of a no-fly zone and what legal authorization would be required for the President to lawfully implement one:

The decision on whether a no-fly zone would be advisable, and under what authorities it might be established, is best placed in the hands of the commander-in-chief. Without question, should President Obama decide on such a course, it would be imprudent for him to proceed without first consulting Congress.

The phrase “under what authorities it might be established” is a reference to legal authority for the use of force; suggesting a decision on this issue “is best placed in the hands of the commander-in-chief” amounts to saying that the President is free to make a decision on whether he has the legal authority to establish a no-fly zone, though it would be “imprudent” to make such a decision without discussing it with Congress first.

This stance is consistent with the Senator’s position during the Libya intervention, the last major U.S. military engagement initiated without Congressional approval. While the War Powers Resolution requires the President to end unauthorized military options 60 or 90 days after they begin, U.S. troops remained involved in operations against Libyan forces beyond that window.

The Obama administration argued that these operations mainly involved logistical and technical support for other NATO and local forces, meaning that they were not “hostilities” in the technical legal sense used in the War Powers Act despite the fact that some U.S. forces were still engaged in direct combat. Reid backed this position, arguing that “The War Powers Act has no application to what’s going on in Libya.”

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has confirmed that the administration is weighing the direct provision of weapons to Syrian rebels. As the situation in Syria deteriorates, regional powers and U.S. lawmakers are attempting to pressure the administration into taking a more direct military role in the conflict.

Alyssa

What The Freakout Over Powerful Women On Maxim’s Hot 100 Says About The Future Of Lad Mags

Far be it from me to praise, in general, Maxim’s Hot 100 list, which in its 2013 edition, as always, is overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly extremely young, and overwhelmingly homogenous in the body shapes of the women it celebrates. Not to mention that there’s something exceptionally depressing about the declaration of pop singer Miley Cyrus, this year’s holder of the number one slot that, “It’s every woman’s fantasy to be told she’s No.1 on Maxim’s Hot 100! So crazy!”

But the inclusions of two women on this year’s Hot 100, and the reactions they’ve provoked, are revealing, both of ways that Maxim might want to expand its brand, and of the limits its placed on itself by teaching men to see women in certain and very specific ways. First, there’s the inclusion of Kamala Harris, the California Attorney General who Maxim manages to compliment in a way that’s actually less condescending than President Obama’s remark that Harris was “the best-looking attorney general in the country,” a comment that foregrounded her looks rather than her expertise. “The current Attorney General of California cracks down on hate and financial crime like a bawss and created the Environmental Justice Unit in San Francisco,” Maxim wrote, next to a portrait of Harris in a smart pantsuit. “She makes following the law super sexy!” Then, there’s Hoda Kotb, the anchor who runs a tipsy, entertaining morning segment on Today, of whom Maxim wrote: “Ms. Kotb brightens our everyday and occasionally puts up with our fearless leader, Dan Bova, on Today. We’ll always want a morning cocktail with the Egyptian goddess!”

It’s all well and good to see Maxim acknowledging some older women, and writing up nominations that acknowledge that a woman’s expertise and her personality, rather than simply her inert body, can contribute to making her extraordinarily attractive. But apparently, not all of Maxim’s readers are on board for a more expansive definition of beauty. Breitbart columnist Ben Shapiro, in the course of making the legitimate complaint that the inclusion of Kotb and Harris tilts the list left—someone like the substantive Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who’s a rising star in the larger Fox organization, might have been a good choice—defaulted to juvenile complaints about their looks.

“As if Maxim’s Hot 100 wasn’t already bizarre enough this year – Miley Cyrus at #1? Really, Maxim? – clocking in at #79 is Hoda Kotb of the Today Show (she is 48 years old) and at #54 is Kamala Harris, attorney general of the state of California and President Obama favorite. Maxim ranks Kotb above Alice Eve (#84, a former Maxim cover girl) and Rebecca Mader (LOST), among others,” Shapiro wrote. “As for Harris, she absurdly ranks above Rachel McAdams (The Notebook, #55), Emmy Rossum (Phantom of the Opera, #56), Eva Mendes (#57), and Brooklyn Decker (#59).”

As much as its ludicrous to watch Shapiro bluster as if there’s some sort of objective, codified standard for women’s looks that Maxim has failed to uphold, his complaints actually make a valid point about the world that Maxim and its fellow American lad-mag derivations have wrought. Kotb and Harris do genuinely stand out on the Hot 100 list because the roster of women is otherwise so consistent. If you spend years teaching your readers that to be attractive, a woman has to fall within a very narrow range of waist-to-hip ratios, pick from a very small selection of hairstyles that have been deemed acceptable in advance, and present herself in a range of ways that suggest that her primary characteristic is sexual availability, of course some of them are going to be surprised when you tell them that everything they’ve learned over the years is incomplete. I’d never venture to suggest that giving over 2 percent of the Hot 100 to different kinds of women indicates that Maxim is on some sort of substantial maturity kick. But if the magazine were to decide it wants to serve readers’ brains as well as their salivary glands, Maxim might need to give them, and itself, a rather gentle learning curve.

Security

Obama Mocks GOP Charges Of A Benghazi ‘Cover-Up’

(Credit: AFP/Getty)

President Obama in a press conference on Monday shot back at Republicans trying to create a scandal out of his administration’s handling of the Benghazi terror attacks last September.

The Benghazi issue resurfaced in recent weeks after Fox News and House Republicans tried and failed to turn up new evidence of some kind of administration “cover-up” of its response to the attacks. And an ABC News report on Friday fanned the flames, purportedly uncovering damning evidence of the White House and State Department’s role in editing talking points on the attacks.

None of these efforts have resulted in any new information and when Obama was asked about it today, he appeared agitated, saying the issue has already been investigated and Benghazi has turned in to a “political circus.” The President also noted what a terrible job his administration is doing if it was trying to cover anything up on Benghazi:

OBAMA: If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down — that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later, we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down, for three days? So the whole thing defies logic and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly has a lot to do with political motivations. We’ve had folks who have challenged Hillary Clinton’s integrity, Susan Rice’s integrity, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering’s integrity. It’s a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. they’ve used it for fundraising and frankly, you know, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again? I am happy to get their advice and information and council.

Watch the entire response in the clip below:

Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador and co-chair of the independent review board on Benghazi, also criticized those claiming the administration is engaged in a cover-up. “I think the notion of a quote, cover up, has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it,” he said last week.

Climate Progress

Will Future Generations Call Obama The ‘Environmental President’ Or An Abject Failure?

It’s tempting to grade the President on a curve, but future generations won’t – if we destroy the livable climate they’ll need to feed 9 billion people.

“History does not forgive us our national mistakes because they are explicable in terms of our domestic politics….  A nation which excuses its own failures by the sacred untouchableness of its own habits can excuse itself into complete disaster.”  – George Kennan, 1951.

c_07252010.gif

Readers have asked my opinion of Jonathan Chait’s New York magazine column: “Obama Might Actually Be the Environmental President.” His sub-hed tells the tale:

His climate-change policy has been an abject failure, says Al Gore and just about everyone else. They’re wrong. Here’s why.

No.

It’s quite safe to say that, at the very least, it is wildly premature to say Obama hasn’t been an abject failure and pretty safe to say that he is — at least from the perspective of future generations and history’s judgment. That was the point of my election night post, “Obama Wins Reelection, Now Must Become A Climate Hawk To Avoid Dust-Bin Of History, Dust Bowl For America.”

While I usually agree with Grist’s inimitable climate hawk, Dave Roberts, I’m not down with, “Seems to me Chait mostly gets it right.” Like Chait, Roberts wants to grade Obama on a curve, “The question for me is whether Obama has been a success compared to what was (and is) possible.”

As I’ll discuss below, I think Obama is a failure on those grounds, too. But it can’t be repeated too often that Obama’s legacy will be determined primarily by whether we avert catastrophic climate change.

If we don’t, then Obama — indeed, the entire political system, the media and the intelligentsia, heck, all of us — will be seen as failures, and rightfully so. As a 2012 PricewaterhouseCoopers report makes clear, anything other than aggressive efforts to slash carbon pollution starting ASAP likely means 7°F  to 11°F warming globally by 2100 (with more warming next century). That would cause substantially higher warming over most of the U.S. It would leave much of the “breakbasket of the world” (and indeed much of the world’s arable and habitable land) in Dust Bowl conditions much worse than this nation has ever known. By mid-century, the nation and the world will be engaged in a desperate multi-decade effort to figure out how to feed nine billion people on a planet whose carrying capacity has been gutted.

If we don’t stop climate catastrophe, then calling Obama the “environmental president” because of all his other, well-documented environmental accomplishments is like, well, the old line, “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

The point of Kennan’s quote above is that history doesn’t grade us on a curve. And in this case, we’d be graded for a millenium of multiple, simultaneous, ever-worsening, irreversible disasters foisted on future generations because we were too greedy and myopic to devote even a small fraction of our wealth to getting off of carbon a few decades sooner than we were forced to anyway! Not exactly “the greatest generation.”

Here is the only curve future generations will grade us on if we allow it to happen, if we destroy the stable climate of the past 11,000 years that enabled modern civilization:

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

But even if we ignore Kennan and take the narrow, short-term perspective — which, it must be pointed out, is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess — and try to imagine what Obama could have done differently, he still can only get an incomplete (that could convert to a D at best, and an F- in most plausible scenarios).

The entire premise of Chait’s piece is that the failure to pass a climate bill isn’t fatal to Obama’s legacy because, near the end of his 8-year presidency, Obama is going to embrace tough carbon pollution standards for existing power plants along the lines of what the Natural Resources Defense Council has proposed (see here). Modified rapture!

Now I don’t think one can discount the fact that using the EPA to deal with carbon opens the door to significant delay through the courts. Worse, if the Republicans can ever figure out how to win the presidency again, they could slow, stop, or roll back the whole thing.

And why wouldn’t the GOP? Team Obama’s catastrophic climate silence — a silence his White House inanely imposed on much of the progressive and environmental establishment back in 2009 (see here) — coupled with his utter failure to push hard for a Senate vote, has turned a winning political “wedge” issue into something that is mistakenly perceived to be a political loser by much of the political establishment. His embrace of an “all of the above” energy strategy, which is to say no strategy at all, has legitimized a massive expansion of fossil fuel production — and export.

No, I’m not overselling what one man can achieve — I’m simply not ignoring the damage done by an entire administration grotesquely indifferent to — and incompetent at — climate messaging. As Prof. Robert Brulle, one of the country’s leading experts on the environmental movement, put it, “By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action.”

We are on the brink of losing yet another full 8 years that could have been used to inform the American public about what’s happening now, the bad stuff coming that we can’t stop, and what needs to be done now to avoid the really catastrophic stuff we can.

Churchillian leadership on climate may not be a sufficient condition for avoiding the climate catastrophe, but it is almost certainly a necessary one.

Given that climate change is in fact an existential threat to the nation and modern civilization, I also don’t think that we can ignore the myriad other failures by Obama beyond his failure to use the bully pulpit. Here are four: 

Read more

Economy

On Day Stock Market Sets New Record, Conservative Group Floats Impeaching Obama For ‘Wrecking The Stock Market’

(Credit: WND.com)

Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 15,056, an all-time record. For one conservative group, this can only mean one thing: it’s time to impeach President Obama.

That was the message Capitol Hill Daily, a conservative publication based out of Baltimore, sent to Citizen United’s listserv today. They accused President Obama of “wreck[ing] the stock market” and asked readers to take a poll about whether he should be impeached as a result.

From the email:

Dear Concerned Reader,

Fearing the very worst, the nation’s super-rich are unloading their stocks at an alarming rate.

Even more troubling, the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who typically know the most, are the ones most anxious to sell.

You see, Obama just allowed 13 new tax increases to further slow the economy, wreck the stock market and make it even harder on the 12 million Americans already looking for work.

The bigger question is this…

Is Obama’s Latest Tax Screw Up Grounds For Impeachment?

See a screenshot below:

When Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the Dow Jones was at 7,949. Over the last 4 years, it has gone up approximately 90 percent before reaching a new high today.

It’s important to remember that the health of the stock market is very different from the health of the overall economy. Middle class wages are stagnating and millions are still unemployed or underemployed.

But when a conservative organization claims ignores reality in such a blatant way, one can’t help but quote former Rep. Barney Frank: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?

LGBT

President Obama: Including LGBT Community In Immigration Reform Is ‘The Right Thing To Do’

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to consider hundreds of proposed amendments to the immigration reform bill, one of which will extend protections to bi-national same-sex couples, because the Defense of Marriage Act current prevents them from sponsoring foreign-born partners. Friday night, President Obama explained that he believes adding that provision is “the right thing to do” because “the LGBT community should be treated like everybody else”:

OBAMA: The LGBT community should be treated like everybody else. That’s the essential core principle behind our founding documents. The idea that we’re all created equal and we’re equal before the law. [...]

I can tell you I think that the provision is the right thing to do. I’ll also tell you that I’m not going to get everything I want in this bill. Republicans are not going to get everything they want in this bill.

Watch it (HT: Blabbeando):

The absence of this specific protection for same-sex couples is causing division over the fate of the bill. Some Republicans, like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have warned that adding this provision will completely derail the bill, but its sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is adamant about including it. LGBT groups, including the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD, and The Task Force support adding it to the bill, but conservative groups like the National Organization for Marriage have accused them of attempting to “brazenly jeopardize immigration reform.”

Health

President Obama Defends Age Restrictions On Over-The-Counter Emergency Contraception

(Credit: WOWKTV)

Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that it will fight to maintain age restrictions on over-the-counter Plan B sales, appealing a U.S. federal judge’s recent ruling that ordered the FDA to make that type of contraceptive available to all women without a prescription. The FDA recently lowered the age threshold for over-the-counter sales from 17 to 15, and President Obama said on Thursday that he supports continuing to restrict Plan B for girls younger than 15.

“I’m very comfortable with the decision they’ve made right now based on solid scientific evidence for girls 15 and older,” Obama said at a press conference on Thursday afternoon. That’s consistent with the administration’s previous claims that Plan B could be too “dangerous” for young women to use correctly.

But — despite Obama’s misleading reference to “solid scientific evidence” — that position isn’t actually backed by science. In fact, multiple prominent doctor’s groups and medical experts have confirmed that emergency contraception is safe for teens of all ages to use. The morning after pill is safer than aspirin. That’s why the FDA approved it for over-the-counter use for all ages back in 2011. The only reason that the agency amended its policy to impose an age restriction is because the Obama administration stepped in to overrule the FDA — a political overreach that wasn’t based on the scientific evidence, but rather signaled a decision to disregard it.

In reality, the fight to limit over-the-counter sales of Plan B is more related to social pressures than it is to scientific evidence. Paternalistic attitudes toward teen sexuality have led many Americans to favor restricting sexual health resources for youth. But, as the American Academy of Pediatrics points out, allowing younger teens to have access to the birth control resources they need is actually a safer public health policy than enacting an unnecessary age restriction, since it can help prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions among young girls. The United States continues to have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world.

Both women’s health groups and anti-abortion activists have been critical of the Obama administration’s emergency contraception policy. Perhaps in an attempt to distance himself from the ongoing controversy, the president noted on Thursday that the FDA is ultimately outside of his purview. “It’s not my decision to make,” Obama said. “The first time around, where there were no age restrictions, Secretary Sebelius expressed concerns and I supported those concerns and I gave voice to them.”

Economy

Economic Pessimism Threatens Democrats Far More Than Republicans Do

A sign at Occupy Wall Street. (Credit: New York Daily News)

An important poll was released Friday by National Journal, reported by Ron Brownstein here and here.  The poll digs deep into people’s economic hopes and fears, uncovering a deep vein of pessimism about the country’s economic trajectory and what that means for the fate of the middle class. This economic pessimism is Obama’s greatest enemy: it can potentially break down the coalition that came together so successfully to re-elect him and it will certainly stymie any efforts that are being made to expand that coalition.

Start with raw economic dissatisfaction. As summarized by Brownstein:

The millennial generation and minorities are much more likely than the public overall to describe their current economic situation as only fair or poor. While 54 percent of the public overall (and just 39 percent of the college white women) put that negative designation on their current economic standing, 63 percent of millennials, 67 percent of African-Americans, and 69 percent of Hispanics say they are struggling…. [I]f minorities and millennials remain this dissatisfied with their economic condition, Democrats will face a growing challenge to maintain through 2016 the lopsided advantages they enjoyed among them in 2012.

In chart form:

That’s bad. And it gets worse. When asked how the middle class is faring today versus their parents’ generation, respondents were far more likely to say things are worse today than better. Brownstein:

Respondents were twice as likely to say the middle class has less, rather than more, opportunity to get ahead today than in their parents’ generation. They were three times more likely to say today’s middle class has less, rather than more, expendable income after paying for expenses. And they were four times as likely to say today’s middle class has less, rather than more, job security than the previous generation.

Chart:

These are politically toxic sentiments, no doubt fed by our ongoing economic woes. If they continue to deepen, it will become ever more difficult to reach beyond the core Obama coalition (even assuming that coalition can be kept together) and recruit new supporters who believe in change. This is particularly true of the white working class, whose views across a range of indicators are uniformly and strikingly pessimistic.

Start with whether they had reached a higher class position than their parents.  Unlike most other groups in the survey, noncollege whites were more likely (36 percent) to say they’d lost ground rather than gained ground (29 percent), relative to their parents.  And a stunning 76 percent of white working class respondents over the age of 40 expressed fear that they would fall out of their current economic class over the next few years, including 46 percent who were “very concerned”.  Reflecting these fears, 60 percent of non-college whites define being middle class as simply managing not to fall behind (“having the ability to keep up with expenses and hold a steady job while not falling behind or taking on too much debt”) rather than getting ahead (“having the opportunity for financial and professional growth, buying a home, and saving and investing for the future”).

Unsurprisingly, their view of the President and his policies is rather bleak. Just 32 percent of white working class respondents approve of his job performance and a meager 18 percent believe his policies will “increase opportunity for people like you to get ahead.”  Efforts to expand the Obama coalition among this demographic seem likely to founder on these sentiments until and unless strong growth returns to the economy and they can envision a future that offers more than a struggle not to fall behind.

Older

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

Sign Up