ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Jennifer Granholm”

Politics

Jennifer Granholm Destroys Santorum’s Opposition To Gun Safety: ‘Why Do You Need An Armor Piercing Bullet?’

By Igor Volsky on Jan 20, 2013 at 10:09 am

Former Republican presidential candidate and likely 2016 contender Rick Santorum dismissed the need for gun safety regulations during an appearance on ABC’s This Week Sunday, arguing that Americans should have access to military-style weapons and magazines, including the armor piercing bullets used by criminals to kill cops.

During a heated exchange with former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Santorum argued that Obama should have focused on restricting access violent Hollywood movies and video games, rather than limiting the availability of assault weapons or high capacity magazines. Asked why American gun owners needed such powerful firearms and bullets that are often used by criminals to kill police officers, Santorum briefly hesitated, before insisting that Americans have a right to defend themselves with the most dangerous weapons:

GRANHOLM: Why do you need armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?

SANTORUM: Because we’re talking about a particular type of bullet that is and can be available –

GRANHOLM: Deer don’t wear armor. Why do you need an armor piercing bullet?

SANTORUM: Criminals could and having, having…

GRANHOLM: And police officers certainly do…

SANTORUM: And having the ability to defend yourself is a right in our country.

Watch it:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — a stach advocate of gun safety — has railed against armor piercing bullets, arguing that they pose high risks to police officers. Police departments and prosecutors across the country supporting restricting access to such ammunition. As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta asked troops at the U.S. Army Garrison Vicenza in Italy this week, “I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?”

Climate Progress

Jennifer Granholm’s Rousing Call To Action On Climate: Get Political To ‘Allow Your Children To Have A Future’

By Stephen Lacey on Apr 24, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Even as extreme weather worsens and the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change gets more alarming, it was hard to find any television outlets touching the subject this Earth Day.

However, there was one show that addressed climate change with a sense of urgency.

While CNN ran stories about “acts of green” and Fox News hilariously lamented that the earth “is not friendly to human beings,” former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm devoted a large portion of her show, The War Room, to the most pressing environmental story in history.

Granholm featured three segments on climate and energy issues, bringing in Al Gore, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Jeffrey Sachs to talk about the consequences of inaction. She also gave her own forceful monologue urging people to put politicians in office that “will allow your children to have a future on this planet.” As Granholm put it, “Your thinking small does not serve the world”:

“Across the political spectrum Democrats, Independents and Republicans now see that the climate is changing….

The climate is changing. But excuses for inaction have not. And nature doesn’t care about excuses.”

Watch it:

Al Gore appeared on the show, saying that he believes the small group of vocal climate deniers will eventually lose their voice: “We have got to win this. And we will win this. Because the reality is what it is.”

Watch it:

Read more

Climate Progress

Jennifer Granholm Pushes Boehner On Wind Tax Credits: ‘Mr. Speaker, This Is Your Lucky Day’ To Create Jobs

By Stephen Lacey on Apr 11, 2012 at 1:42 pm

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm issued a forceful plea to House Speaker John Boehner yesterday: If you’re serious about creating and preserving jobs, support extension of the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind.

In a wonderfully articulate editorial on her Current TV show, The War Room, Granholm urged Boehner to set aside ideology, extend the PTC, and provide consistency for businesses investing in this economically-valuable sector:

Mr. Speaker, of course you are right: We do need to create more jobs. So guess what — this is your lucky day. There’s one sector of the American economy that is losing jobs as we speak — and you can put a stop to it.

One simple solution is to pass the legislation that helps large-scale wind-energy producers compete against heavily subsidized fossil fuel. The Production Tax Credit has bipartisan support in Congress. It has the full support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The PTC has supported hundreds of large-scale wind projects around the country, helping drop installed costs 90% in the last few decades, attract a broad array of manufacturers, and create 75,000 jobs. In fact, the wind industry supports 7,500 direct and indirect jobs in Boehner’s home state of Ohio, according to the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

Unlike permanent tax credits for oil and gas, the PTC expires every couple of years — setting up a “boom-bust” cycle in the industry and threatening private investment.

Leading companies are already cancelling manufacturing plants and preparing to lay off workers. The wind industry says it could shed as many as 37,000 jobs if the credit expires at the end of this year.

Even with the support of more than 350 companies, a bi-partisan coalition of the nation’s governors, and local conservative politicians around the country, Congress has failed to extend this vital tax credit. Meanwhile, they’ve voted to preserve $24 billion in tax credits for the highly-mature oil and gas industries.

The wind industry has been pushing on this issue intensely. However, in trying to stay as non-partisan as possible, it has failed to hold Congressional leaders accountable. If more influential people like Granholm actually stand up and fight for the PTC, the political equation could still shift. Who’s going to step up next?

Watch Granholm’s entire editorial here:

Alyssa

Tell Me What You Really Think: The Ten Best Revelations of Keith Olbermann’s Lawsuit Against Current TV

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Apr 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm

After Current TV fired Keith Olbermann last week, the combative host vowed he’d sue his (most recent) former network. Olbermann and his lawyers filed suit in California yesterday, and their allegations make for quite the read. Olbermann’s complaints with his former employer range from the social to the technical. Here are the ten most serious—and funniest—charges Olbermann makes against Current TV and its executives in the order they appear in the lawsuit:

1. Current co-founder Joel Hyatt was kind of socially awkward: A thread running through Olbermann’s lawsuit is that Current tried to distance him from his representation, sometimes to disadvantage him in negotiations. But in this case, Olbermann makes a more personal allegation, that “Hyatt also attempted to isolate Olbermann from his professional representatives in an awkward attempt to form a close personal friendship with his new star.”

2. Current underinvested in its web presence, to the detriment of its audience base: Sometime, these charges are an opportunity for snark, as when the suit alleges “Stunningly, Al Gore’s network was not interested in establishing a strong internet presence.” But the suit also suggests that the network was slow to build out its web presence and wouldn’t allow Olbermann’s show to stream online, a hook that might have helped viewers who didn’t have Current or weren’t sure where to find the network on their channel lineups, continue to watch the program. “Current even refused Olbermann’s request and contractual right, to stream segments of the Program and additional web-only content over the Program Website. It is both sad and ironic that a channel owned and founded by Al Gore, for the stated purpose of creating an independent perspective, free from the control of large corporate interests, restricted the rights of its most celebrated commentator and Chief News Officer to fully broadcast his opinions over, of all things, the internet.”

3. Current’s facilities were a mess: This has been one of the most commonly reported points of dissension between Current and Olbermann, particularly after an electrical failure while the program was on-air led Olbermann to bring a candle on set. The lawsuit alleges that “Current President David Bohrman admitted ‘the 33rd St. facility is never going to be a professional facility. We need to move to HD, and a better location.’ He further admitted in that same e-mail ‘We are paying for a Porsche and getting a Yugo.’”

4. Hyatt behavior threatened Olbermann’s staff: “Hyatt’s leadership was highly erratic. Just days before the premiere of the Program, Hyatt even threatened to fire Olbermann and the loyal staff members who had followed him from MSNBC to Current. Hyatt behaved as if he had just paid Olbermann to become his puppet instead of the Chief News Officer of the network.”

5. Hyatt and Current were moustache-twirling blackmailers: “Hyatt blackmailed Olbermann into agreeing to put himself in a position that no other major talent in the entertainment or news industries has been forced into in decades: fending for himself without the benefit of hire advisors. Olbermann gave in to Hyatt’s blackmail for the purposes of saving the premiere of the Program and the jobs of those who worked on it. Olbermann left the meeting devastated at having discovered that he was working for a blackmailer.”

Read more

Alyssa

Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Women in Media, Her Dream Guest, and Being Fair, But Not Balanced

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 15, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm hadn’t planned to make cable news her next career move after leaving office. But when former Vice President Al Gore called her up and asked Granholm to help fill out the prime time lineup at Current TV, she couldn’t resist. Before her show, The War Room, launched on January 31, Granholm promised to use her experience delivering talking points to call out politicians who try to sell them to the American public. I spoke with her about what her time in public service lets her bring to the cable news environment, why Fox, MSNBC, and CNN called on men rather than women to discuss President Obama’s contraception rule, and which guests she’d love to land. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Before you started your television show, what holes had you identified in the media that you wanted to fill? What really turned you off or dissatisfied you that you wanted to avoid?

Well, I wasn’t planning on doing a show. So I was called by Al Gore at Current here, and they wanted to build out their primetime lineup. So it’s only after that that I began thinking about what could be done in primetime that wasn’t already being done by others. One benefit I bring is that I have served. I was governor of the state with the toughest economy in the country for the last 10 years. The economy is the most important issue in this debate. And I know most of the candidates, Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Mike Huckabee. I’ve served with them, I know what they’re doing in their states, and I can peel back the curtain. On both politics and policy, I can describe wht it’s like to be in the war room, to be preparing for debates.

One of the things you mentioned at the Television Critics Association is that you’d bring to the table the ability to see when politicians are delivering talking points and calling them out on it.

I’ve delivered so many talking point [that] I recognize when it’s happening. Maybe you’re not going to be able to get them to answer honestly, because they’re on a script, but I can identify for people what’s really going on behind the scenes. Having been there, I know exactly what’s going on. Calling them out if you can’t even get them to answer the question is important.

You seem to be part of a new generation of cable journalists who are bringing non-journalism experience to the networks, like Melissa Harris-Perry at MSNBC. Do you think this is a lasting trend? And what impact does it have on coverage?

I hope it’s not a blip. [It lets viewers understand] why is something just happened, not just that it’s happening. If Current wanted an anchor, I’m the last person they would hire. I think that’s interesting to viewers. They want to know what’s behind the curtain. They want to know the inside scoop. And that’s true whether that’s someone bringing the historical perspective, or someone like Lawrence O’Donnell, who worked [in various capacities] inside the Beltway.

Some of your coworkers have suggested that viewers are looking for a channel that’s bluntly progressive, and maybe even a little angry. Do you agree? And how do you fit into that equation?

We’re obviously a brand-new network, so we hope that it will translate into viewership. What Current brings is no need to have this false moral equivalency that other networks require. It’s interesting to have people on both sides of the issue that you want to get to the bottom of things. But to pretend that the president is just as culpable for not getting something done as people who went to Washington for the purpose of obstructionism, that is a false equivalency. Call them out on it. That is something that we have the freedom to be able to do because we don’t have owners who want a “fair and balanced” approach. You need to be fair, but you don’t need to be balanced.
Read more

NEWS FLASH

Granholm: Let Romney Go Bankrupt | With former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) attending fundraisers in Detroit today and tomorrow, former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) is calling on Michigan voters to “Let Mitt Romney go bankrupt.” Romney, a native Michigander, wrote an op-ed in 2009 opposing the auto bailouts, titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” Granholm writes that the bailouts saved Detroit’s auto industry, adding, “When Romney comes here with his hand out Wednesday, his Michigan supporters should treat him in the same way he treated the auto industry.”

Politics

Granholm calls out Armey and Ryan for wanting to ‘effectively dismantle’ the social safety net.

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Aug 22, 2010 at 3:00 pm

As ThinkProgress noted, former House Speaker Dick Armey laid out a plan this week that would effectively dismantle Social Security and Medicare “as you know it” by privatizing a large portion of these critical social safety net programs. On Meet the Press today, Armey and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) discussed a different Republican plan to privatize and dismantle the social safety net, Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “Roadmap for America’s Future.” Granholm calls Ryan’s plan “far outside the mainstream,” noting that 85 percent of Americans don’t want to cut Social Security to solve the deficit.” Armey responds by laughing, claiming that “no one is talking about dismantling these systems:”

GREGORY: Governor, is this an example of what they called a mainstream political movement, some of these candidates and their views?

GRANHOLM: No. I think it’s far outside of the mainstream. In fact, one of the things, you just held up Paul Ryan’s proposal regarding Medicare and regarding Social Security, I think a lot of which you’ve jumped on to as well. There was a recent poll out that says 85 percent of Americans don’t want to see Social Security cut to solve the deficit. … If you care about democracy and what every citizen believes and you want to empower them, and they don’t want the social security system to be dismantled, and they don’t want the medicare system to be dismantled because your picking and choosing and this is a contact between generations to be able to make sure all of our seniors have the funds when they retire, that they’re not going to be homeless, that they’re not going to have to go to a shelter. I’m not kidding you. The idea that 85–

ARMEY: [Laughing] You just crack me up. No one is talking about dismantling these systems.

GRANHOLM: You just crack me up too, man. Well if you ask every actuarial that’s looked at it says you effectively dismantle the system.

Watch it:

As has been repeatedly noted, Ryan’s plan would destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it, whether or not its advocates are talking about it that way. And while Armey laughs insensitively when Granholm brings up elderly homelessness, the problem was no laughing matter before the passage of these programs. Social Security and Medicare “ultimately made poorhouses obsolete.” Meanwhile, elderly homelessness is projected to rise by a third in the next ten years, and as the National Alliance to End Homesless notes, “Social Security, Medicare, and housing programs targeting the elderly will be critical for meeting the challenge and reducing risk of homelessness.”

Related Posts

Politics

Granholm: Limbaugh’s Attacks On American-Made Electric Vehicles Are ‘Un-American’

By Guest Blogger on Aug 6, 2010 at 11:43 am

Last Friday, President Obama visited General Motors and Chrysler plants in Detroit, MI to resoundingly reaffirm the administration’s decision last year “to rescue the ailing auto industry.” While visiting the GM plant, the President test drove Chevrolet’s highly touted electric car, the Volt. In anticipation of Obama’s visit to Detroit, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a campaign to deride Chevrolet’s electric vehicle, attacking “everything from the federal bailout of Chevy’s parent General Motors Corp. to the supposed superiority complex of people who would buy electric or hybrid cars.”

At a Center for American Progress event yesterday entitled “Securing Michigan’s Clean Energy Future,” Think Progress spoke with Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) about Limbaugh’s high-handed criticisms of the Chevy Volt. Granholm — a passionate advocate of clean energy as an avenue of job growth and economic revitalization — said Limbaugh’s claims are “just un-American.” She also pointed out that the Volt is a “‘good’ new story” and GM has successfully paid back its loans to the public:

Q: And we know you’ve had the disaster in the Gulf, you’ve had an oil spill in your own state. You know, you guys are doing a lot in making these investments in batteries and in new care. And here you have people like Rush Limbaugh, come out and say that the Volt is an “overpriced lemon.” What do you say to critics?

GRANHOLM: It’s just un-American. I can’t believe that somebody would say this about this American product. He hasn’t even driven it. He hasn’t sat in it. You know, why wouldn’t you be supportive of American manufacturers building American vehicles with American workers, who now have jobs as a result of this. Why wouldn’t you be supportive of that? It is mind-blowing to me. And of course, the public is getting paid back. You know, GM has paid back the loan — the bottom line is, is this is a “good” news story, and somebody who would twist it to be something negative obviously has another agenda. Which we all know he does.

Watch it:

During his vitriolic attack on the Volt last week, Limbaugh announced “with no small amount of pride that he turned down General Motors’ lucrative offer to continue advertising for the company because his strong principles would not allow him to recommend to people the Chevy Volt.” Last year, however, the hate radio host was singing quite a different tune. As Media Matter notes, when GM’s advertising dollars began flowing to his network in April 2009, Limbaugh eagerly endorsed the auto company’s payment protection plan despite lambasting GM only weeks earlier.

– Nina Bhattacharya

Update

Joe Romm has a more detailed debunk of the attacks on the Volt.

Yglesias

The Supreme Court’s Other Diversity Gap

By Matthew Yglesias on May 4, 2009 at 1:01 pm

supreme-court

Fun facts from Paul Campos:

[Supreme Court Justices'] education is even more uniform than their careers. Six attended Harvard Law School, while two others graduated from Yale.

The Court is bound to be a fairly elite institution, but that’s pretty ridiculous.

More generally, I do find myself drawn to the idea that it would make sense to move back somewhat toward our historical tradition of putting politicians on the bench. Given that it’s fairly common for American elected officials to have backgrounds as either a state Attorney-General or else as a U.S. Attorney, this idea is hardly incompatible with the basic point that a Justice needs legal expertise. Jennifer Granholm wouldn’t be a break with HLS’ domination of the bench, but combines some basic legal background (clerkship on a federal appeals court, Assistant US Attorney, Michigan Attorney-General) with political experience.

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

Sign Up