Think Progress

Bachmann Lies About Census’ American Community Survey, Claims It Doesn’t Ask About Citizenship »

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been fearmongering about the 2010 Census and bragging that she plans to break the law by refusing to answer it. “I know for my family, the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that,” said Bachmann recently.

On Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann continued to attack the Census, repeatedly insisting that people should go to her website to “see the Census form for themselves.” Listing off a few questions from the American Community Survey (a long-form survey sent out to one in 40 households each year) that she considers invasive, Bachmann claimed that it doesn’t ask “are you an American citizen”:

BACHMANN: Twenty-eight pages. Sean, you know the one question they don’t ask? They don’t ask, “are you an American citizen?” They don’t ask if you’re here on a visa or when it expires. We have no real idea how many illegal aliens are in our country. But wouldn’t you think, here they are asking every personal question about our lives, they could at least ask if we’re an American citizen? They don’t bother to ask for that. That’s why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it.

Listen here:

In fact, the American Community Survey does ask about U.S. citizenship and it has since 1890:

Additionally, though Bachmann repeatedly directed Hannity’s listeners to her website, michelebachmnann.com, in order to view the Census questions, the questions aren’t actually available on her website. A press release on her congressional website, however, does encourage citizens to read the Census and ACS questions. Apparently Bachmann has yet to take her own advice.

Transcript: More »« Less

Hannity: We Should Take Note Of Only The Bad Things Anonymous Lawyers Have Said About Sotomayor

Last night, Fox’s Sean Hannity continued his attack against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor using cherry-picked quotes about her from a profile of Sotomayor in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which relies on anonymous quotes from lawyers who have tried cases in her court room. Hannity used the quotes to characterize Sotomayor as “agressive,” “out-of-control,” and, “nasty”:

HANNITY: [W]hat do the lawyers who have appeared in her courtroom think of her judicial temperament? Well, not much. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary solicits commentary from practicing attorneys about our federal judges. Now here’s what some lawyers who have argued before Judge Sotomayor had to say about her. Quote, She is a terror on the bench. She is overly aggressive, not very judicial. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She is nasty to lawyers.

Hannity then turned to Jay Sekulow from Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and Andrew McCarthy of the National Review to confirm his extremely distorted view of Sotomayor. Watch it:

Had Hannity wanted to present a “fair and balanced” view of Sotomayor’s reputation, he would have noted that lawyers quoted in the edition of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary from which he drew his statements also had many positive things to say about Sotomayor. Indeed, they said she was “very smart,” “very intelligent,” “an exceptional judge overall,” and that “she has a very good commonsense approach to the law.”

Additionally, as Rob Kar at PrawfsBlawg found, the 2000 edition of the Almanac painted, on balance, a much more positive image of Sotomayor than the more recent edition that Hannity quoted. Indeed, the 2000 edition lacks any description of her being a “terror” or “out-of-control.” Instead, she is described as “not rude in any way, but she’s exacting,” “professional,” and “all business”:

Lawyer’s found Sotomayor to be demanding. “I think she’s fine.” “She can be tough. She’s not rude in any way, but she’s exacting.” “She’s all business.” “I’ve never had any problem with her, but I know some lawyer’s don’t care for her temperament.” “She can be tough as nails, but, in truth, I think some lawyers give her a hard time or are threatened by her. She’s very accomplished and clearly smart, and, in truth, I think they’re intimidated. She has always been decent enough to me.” “She’s professional. She’s not quite as friendly or as approachable as some of the other circuit court judges are. She’s a little more stern.” “She’s very smart and well-prepared, and she expects lawyers to rise to her level. She has very little tolerance for lawyers who can’t match her intellectually.”

Conservatives Outraged Over Release Of Torture Photos, But Not Over Actual Torture

On April 23, the Obama administration announced it would release hundreds of photos of detainee interrogation, obeying a court order from a lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Predictably, conservatives furious with the Obama administration’s attempt at greater transparency denounced the move. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) wrote to President Obama asking him not to release the photos because they could inflame potential terrorists:

The release of these old photographs of past behavior that has now clearly been prohibited will serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform. We know that many terrorists captured in Iraq have told American interrogators that one of the reasons they decided to join the violent jihadist war against America was what they saw on Al-Qaeda videos of abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib,” wrote Graham and Lieberman.

Today, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President, decried the move as “appalling,” saying in a Fox News interview that the decision was proof Obama was aiming to “side with the terrorists”:

CHENEY: Clearly what they are doing is releasing images that show American military men and women in a very negative light. And I have heard from families of service members, from families of 9/11 victims, this question about, you know, when did it become so fashionable for us to side, really,with the terrorists?

Watch a compilation of conservatives complaining about the potential release of torture photos:

The photos of torture aren’t the root of the problem. After all — if you don’t torture, you don’t have torture photos. Notably, many of the figures decrying the release of photos have ardently defended the government’s right to torture people:

SEN. LIEBERMAN: “Most people think it’s definitely torture. The truth is, it has mostly a psychological impact on people. … [W]e ought to be able to use something like waterboarding.”

HANNITY: “I am having a hard time understanding, though, why dunking somebody’s head in water….just to scare the living daylights out of them… why would you oppose that?”

LIZ CHENEY: “[T]he tactics are not torture, we did not torture. The memos lay out the extent of exactly how far we could go before it would become torture because it was very important that we not cross that line into torture.”

LT. COL. BOB MAGINNES: “If we take away tools, whether actual tools or implied tools, from [American intelligence officials'] tool chest, and therefore undermine their potential effectiveness, then I think we hurt our whole cause.”

HUCKABEE: “It was like a carnival ride. … For example, it wasn’t that we were actually going to drown someone, but it was a simulation of it. And for that, there was in fact some information that came forth.”

In fact, Huckabee defended the utility of waterboarding within 30 seconds of agreeing with Hannity that Obama’s release of interrogation photos was “hurting our nation’s defenses.” Fox reporter Catherine Herridge said that “these pictures of humiliation” can be “a primary factor of suicide bombers.”

It’s not the pictures that recruits suicide bombers; it’s what the pictures depict. Torture — ordered by Bush and Cheney — damaged America and increased the risk of another terrorist attack, and revealing the truth of what happened doesn’t change that fact.

Fox Condemns Sykes’s Act: If A Talk Radio Host Compared Obama To A Terrorist, He Would Be Fired »

Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity and Dick Morris expressed outrage at comedian Wanda Sykes’s act at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Sykes joked that “maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight,” and said she hoped his kidneys fail. Specifically, Hannity couldn’t believe that she compared Limbaugh to a terrorist, saying her jokes were far worse than waterboarding detainees. He and guest Dick Morris then claimed that if a conservative radio host ever made such a comparison, he could be fired or arrested:

HANNITY: Calling him a terrorist, comparing him to bin Laden, et cetera, et cetera, and then wishing kidney failure. Now for all the moral indignation and outrage over waterboarding, what would be worse, wishing an American citizen who has a different point of view that his kidneys fail and to waterboard a terrorist to get information? [...]

HANNITY: Now there is a double standard. Now can you imagine if we go through this list here of — what if somebody called Barack Obama, compared him to a terrorist? What if somebody wished him ill? That he wouldn’t do well? [...]

MORRIS: He would be carted off in handcuffs. And they should be. No one should make a joke about the president dying and frankly no one should make a joke about someone in political life like that dying.

Ironically, a few seconds later, Hannity asked why Sykes didn’t bring up President Obama’s tenuous link to former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Watch it:

Hannity repeatedly brings up Obama’s connection to Ayers to imply that the President might sympathize with terrorists. Of course, Hannity has never been fired — or arrested — for doing so. Similarly, Morris has claimed that Obama’s relationship to Ayers is “the equivalent of having a close relationship with Osama bin Laden.”

Over at TAPPED yesterday, Adam Serwer also rounded up many of Limbaugh’s previous statements, including his belief that Obama himself is a “terrorist attack,” Obama wants to “murder a million babies a year,” and that if UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps “slobbering” over Obama, he’ll “come down with anal poisoning and may die from it.”

Of course, neither Hannity nor Morris were advocating firing Limbaugh last night.

Transcript: More »« Less

Gingrich: After Specter’s Departure, A New ‘Contract With America’ Sounds Like A ‘Very Good Idea’ »

One of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s lasting legacies was his 1994 conservative revolution where he and other Republicans made a so-called “Contract with America.” Over time, the public learned that the real “contract” conservatives were making was with K Street lobbyists who lined the pockets of the right-wing with hefty contributions, helped them maintain power, and were in turn rewarded with undue (and corrupting) influence over policy-making. Leaders of the Republican revolution — such as Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert — left office surrounded by ethics scandals.

Last night, Gingrich — who often tries to find “new, bold” ideas in decades-old proposals — went on Fox News and agreed with Sean Hannity that what America now needs is a new “Contract with America”:

HANNITY: Now look, I’ve been urging a new Contract with America. By the way, and I give you all the credit for the original Contract. … Republicans can be the Party of national security, the can now be the party of fiscal responsibility, of energy independence, free market solution, the American dream. Very simple, but they’ve got to put their name on a piece of paper and they’ve got to promise people, because they made mistakes when t hey were in power. Is that a good idea? Do you think maybe —

GINGRICH: Well, look, I think it’s a very good idea for September of 2010 and I do think the one thing that Senator Specter has done tonight is he’s clarified a lot more decisively that the Republican Party is going to be the Party of lower taxes, less spending, smaller bureaucracy, less power in Washington.

Both Gingrich and Hannity also cheered the fact that the Republican party was becoming more narrowly focused. Gingrich said that Specter “has changed the equation clearly, because it makes the Republican Party a more clearly conservative and significant Party.” Watch it:

Indeed, as Specter himself said yesterday, the GOP has pushed out moderates and “moved far to the right.” RNC Chairman Michael Steele had called for punishing Specter for straying from strict party discipline, and a chorus of hard-right conservatives have been viciously trashing the senator for months.

Last summer, Gingrich also launched his 527 organization American Solutions, which, like his Contract with America — had a flashy slogan about helping the American public while actually serving the interests of lobbyists.

Transcript: More »« Less

Steele Offers New Conspiracy Theory, Alleges Government Is Spying On Anti-Abortion Rally

Last night on Fox News, host Sean Hannity and his guest RNC Chairman Michael Steele ranted and raved about a Department of Homeland Security report “requested by the Bush administration” which warned of increasing incidents of “rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

Hannity responded by implying that President Obama is a possible terrorist threat. “If you’re pro-life, you’re viewed as the potential extremist,” he complained, but “you can start your career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist and hang out with a guy named Jeremiah Wright.” “I don’t want to beat an old horse here,” said Hannity, who incessantly harps on Obama’s affiliations. “But I’m telling you if anyone hung out with radicals that needs to be investigated by Homeland Security,” he said, cutting himself off before explicitly stating that the President of the United States is a terrorist threat.

Michael Steele, who spoke at an anti-abortion rally in Indiana this past week, said he was “sure” that the government spied on the event:

They’ve got their eye on the 3,000 Americans who assembled in Indiana last night, in Evansville, Indiana, to profess their continued effort to save the life of the unborn. … I’m sure there was somebody in the room with a notepad and a camera taking snapshots and writing down names. But that’s not the place our government needs to be.

Where our government needs to be is on that border, securing that border. Where our government needs to be is overseas and in the backhalls and rooms of the Middle East to make sure that we’re not suffering another terrorist attack here at home.

Watch it:

Of course, Steele offered no evidence that the government was monitoring the event.

(HT: Oliver Willis)

Right Wing Hysterical Over Obama’s ‘Not At War With Islam’ Remarks: ‘We Have Nothing To Apologize For’

President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world has been a welcome development after eight years of President Bush’s “us vs. them” approach. “Let me say this as clearly as I can,” he told the Turkish parliament yesterday. “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He told Turkish students today, “You will find a partner and a supporter and a friend in the United States of America.” Middle Eastern leaders are embracing Obama’s outreach already.

But apparently, the conservative establishment finds such outreach objectionable. On Fox News yesterday, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity all derided Obama’s comments to the Turkish parliament. They argued that in fact, the Iraq war served as evidence of America’s concern for Muslims. CNN’s Lou Dobbs also decried Obama’s praise for the “great civilization of Iran”:

BOLTON:There are an enormous amount of things we’ve done to benefit Muslims in countries all over the world. We have nothing to apologize for.

KRISTOL: But could Barack Obama say something that would be mildly unpopular to an audience which he was speaking? No. Could he say that the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq are just and that we have fought for Muslims, incidentally under President Clinton we fought for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo?

HANNITY: It seemed to me…that this was an attempt to apologize for toppling Saddam Hussein and the war on terror.

DOBBS: In his efforts to charm our allies, President Obama noted that Islam helped shape the world for the better, including the United States. He even declared Iran to be a great civilization.

Charles Krauthammer said Obama’s parliament speech was “not original and not terribly important.” Kristol responded that Krauthammer was being “too nice.” Watch a compilation:

In his first trip abroad, Obama also extended a hand towards Europe, saying that America had “shown arrogance” and had “been dismissive, even derisive” towards Europeans in the past. Again, the right wing saw this as evidence of Obama’s anti-Americanism.

The outreach is desperately needed. Over “70 percent of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans believe the United States is trying to weaken and divide the Islamic world,” an April 2007 WorldPublicOpinion poll said. It seems that for the far right, however, the best outreach is always through bullets and bombs.

Far Right’s New Talking Point: Obama’s Remarks In Europe Prove He Hates America

Speaking in Strasbourg, France, last Friday, President Obama sought to turn the page on the American-Europe relationship. He admitted that in the past, America had “shown arrogance” and had “been dismissive, even derisive” of Europe. He also said that Europe’s rampant anti-Americanism was “insidious.” Neither attitude, he said, was “wise,” nor do they “represent the truth.”

Apparently, maturity and nuance from a U.S. President gets interpreted as anti-American hatred to the radical right. On Friday night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Obama’s speech was evidence that “he harbors deep resentment” of America. The right wing continued its hysteria over the weekend and today:

KARL ROVE: There are ways to make the point that he made without running down America.

SEAN HANNITY: I am tired of Obama pandering to what I consider to be the worst instincts of those who hate this country.

NICOLE WALLACE: I think at his core he does not seem to believe in American exceptionalism, the way more Republicans define it.

Watch a compilation:

Not surprisingly, Hannity tied Obama’s comments back to his favorite topic: Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “Where did he get these ideas?” Hannity asked on Fox & Friends this morning. “Could it be that he sat in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years? Could it be that he hung out with Father Pfleger? Could it be that he was hanging out with his buddy Tony Rezko?”

For months, the far right has sought to peg Obama as some sort of anti-American “Manchurian candidate.” In October, Michael Goldfarb said that “Obama has a long track record of being around…anti-American rhetoric.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) warned that an Obama presidency would turn America into a “totalitarian dictatorship,” while Tom Delay prided himself on being among the first to declare Obama a Marxist. Dispensing with nuance, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) proclaimed flatly last fall, “Barack Obama’s views are against America.”