Why Are the Republicans Afraid of President Obama? 22APR11

THE repiglicans are cowards and clowns, as pointed out in this post by Bob Cesca on Huffpost.....
One of the most often-overheard refrains from the Republican Party and its far-right base is that President Obama is the worst president in American history. Others say he "pals around with terrorists." They say he's destroying America. They say that he's weak, that he dithers and that he's effete -- implying either that he's gay or effeminate or both. Around half of all Republicans have told pollsters that he's not even constitutionally eligible to be president, which ought to mandate an immediate removal from office.
But what does all of this say about the men and women who are noticeably hesitant to officially announce their candidacies for the Republican nomination? Not a single one of the well-known frontrunners has declared anything more than "exploratory committees" -- quite literally the presidential campaign equivalent of dithering.
At this juncture in the 2008 cycle, most of the major Democratic and Republican candidates were underway with their official campaigns. And yet...
Michele Bachmann, a would-be frontrunner, called the president "even worse" than President Carter. She accused him of being "infantile" and suggested he wouldn't even run for a second term because the "floor has dropped out" from his support. However, tough-talking Michele Bachmann hasn't officially declared her candidacy to run against this allegedly unpopular weakling.
Mitt Romney said that his "worst fears" about the president have come true and that the chief executive is pushing an "extreme liberal agenda." Romney also accused the president of being "tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced" on Libya. However, tough-talking Mitt Romney hasn't officially declared his candidacy to run against such a timid and indecisive extremist. How would Mitt react when confronted by actual extremists? Hopefully not with the same timidity he's exercising in his run for president.
Sarah Palin has screeched nearly every imaginable insult at the president (often while she's utterly botching commonly-known facts about the Constitution). She accused him of "dithering" on Libya. He's a "spectator-in-chief," she said. She's accused him of being a socialist. She told Sean Hannity that she "fears for our democracy" due to the president's agenda. She's famously accused him of being a terrorist sympathizer -- this alone ought to compel her to run for president if only to rid the executive branch of an obvious terrorist. However, pit bull Sarah Palin appears to be "dithering" when in comes to her campaign to run against this alleged terrorist, socialist ditherer.
The irreversibly somnambulatory Tim Pawlenty has accused the president of being "weak" on foreign policy and "clueless" on the economy. Pawlenty accused the president's Libya decision of being "belated and timid." Okay, but what does it say about Pawlenty when he's only announced an exploratory committee to run against someone who he believes is "weak" and "timid?"
Newt Gingrich couldn't even generate a consistent position on Libya. No wonder he can't decide whether to run against the president, who, by the way, he accused of being "weak" and an "amateur" and the most "incompetent" commander-in-chief "since Carter." But still no official campaign announcement from Gingrich. You'd think someone as weak and incompetent would be easy to defeat, no?
Donald Trump is, well, he's the driver of the GOP clown car at this point; and, as we're all aware by its around-the-clock coverage on cable news, doesn't believe the president is a citizen much less a legal office holder. And, of course, Trump believes the president is the "worst president in history." No official announcement from Trump even though defeating a president this criminally out of bounds should be a cakewalk.
If what they're all saying were true (its' not), why are they so clearly afraid to run against President Obama: a president who they claim is some sort of gelatinous, terrorist, girlish, treasonous, Eurotrash socialist, gay, Kenyan constitutional usurper?
There are several reasons why the Republicans are dithering.
First, Republican voters are more convinced about the wacky birth certificate thing than they are about their preference for a nominee. While 45 percent of Republicans believe the silly, fringe conspiracy theory that the president isn't a citizen, 56 percent of Republicans support "none of the above" candidates, with most of the frontrunners sharing single-digit support. That's bad. 56 percent of Republicans would rather see "none of the above" than any of the current roster of would-be nominees. Simply put, Birtherism is more popular than the candidates themselves.
Second, the president's approval numbers are artificially weak. Gas prices and the slow decline of the unemployment rate are pissing off voters, and so they're taking it out on the president. That said, there's a long list of accomplishments which the president can ballyhoo against these negative event-driven gripes. In other words, in the absence of jobless numbers and high gas prices, there are quite a few positives.
Economic growth is up, and has been steadily growing since the passage of the president's recovery act. President Obama successfully appointed the first Hispanic female Supreme Court justice which invigorates a growing Hispanic demographic. Unemployment is slowly declining. The stock market is up, thus stabilizing 401(k)s and mutual funds owned by middle class Americans. And despite what the Republicans say, the president and the Democrats cut the deficit by $122 billion last year: the largest single-year decline in the deficit in American history. The list goes on and on. As soon as the Obama 2012 re-election campaign gets cranking on these accomplishments, the mostly unpopular Republican candidates will be almost totally neutered. Moreso than now.
Third, the Republican legislative record is ridiculous. Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner have introduced ideologically far-right, inconsequential and symbolic bills that kill Planned Parenthood and NPR. They've passed legislation that cuts spending for pregnant women. They've passed legislation that magically circumvents the constitutional lawmaking process. They refuse to raise taxes on the rich while trying to gut Medicaid and kill Medicare, even though supermajorities of Americans support both of these crucial healthcare programs -- including majority support from tea party Republicans.
And finally, at this late juncture, I don't see how the Republicans will be able to compete with the Obama machine when it comes to money, even with the awful Citizen's United decision and its subsequent deluge of corporate cash into the Republican Party.
The modern Republican Party fancies itself the party of quick, decisive action. Shoot first and let God sort out the rest. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. It's the part of swift military action. It's the party that's spending $500,000 in congressional money to fight gay people. It's the party of apoplectic, doomsday talk radio screamers. It's the party that mocks "femi-nazis" -- the party that refuses to "bend over" for the "little black man-child." This is what they say, and it's a whole lot of blustery, impotent noise.
There's one last reason why the Republicans are so cautious about declaring their intentions. They're cowards. And they're self-debunking the mythology that modern Republicans are bold, brave "Reagan-ish" leaders. They're cowards and so they're moving at granny-speed rather than light-speed to run against the president -- a real leader onto whom they're projecting their dithering and indecisiveness.
Not that I'm complaining.
Listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Elvis Show, with Bob Cesca and Elvis Dingeldein, on iTunes.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

SIN OF SILENCE

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- Abraham Lincoln

Thursday, Aug 19, 2010 15:30 ET Heroes, villains and cowards of the so-called "ground zero mosque" 19AUG10

Who's defended religious liberty, who's been too scared to, and who truly hates our founding principles? Video

By Alex Pareene

AP

Top left, clockwise: Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Harry Reid, President Obama

The bizarre, ginned-up controversy surrounding the Park51 project -- a proposed Islamic community center, like the 92nd Street Y, including a space for worship, to be built at the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory (which is a store, not a factory) on Park Place in lower Manhattan, near, but not in sight of, the site of the World Trade Center -- has exposed not just the blatant Islamophobia (and cheerful willingness to exploit bigotry) of many luminaries of the right, but also the cowardice of many supposed liberals. Just so we know where we stand, and using, as criteria for placement, my own inexact impressions of their public statements, I present the official War Room lists of "ground zero mosque" heroes, villains and cowards.
Heroes
It's not a particularly hard case to make: The Constitution guarantees the right of the Cordoba Initiative to construct a house of worship on private land without any interference from the government, "Muslims" as a whole did not attack "us" on 9/11, Feisal Abdul Rauf is a well-respected, progressive imam with a history of performing outreach for the Bush administration, and even if the project was a "ground zero mosque," celebrating its construction would demonstrate an admirable commitment to the founding ideals that we are supposedly fighting for Over There. At a time when Islamophobia appears to be on the rise, in part because xenophobia always tends to get louder during periods of economic uncertainty, liberals and progressives should be forcefully making the case for tolerance and liberty. But only a couple have bothered. Still, we should celebrate them!
Rep. Jerry Nadler, whose district actually includes ground zero, has been a loud and unflinching supporter of the project. He makes the case well, and without tossing in wishy-washy qualifications:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's speech in support of the Park51 project has been rightly celebrated as a courageous moral and intellectual defense of religious freedom.
Outside of New York, Sen. Russ Feingold accused mosque opponents of "gutter politics" and affirmed his support for "freedom of religion," the simple answer that all Democratic politicians and candidates should give. Minnesota's Al Franken also attacked opponents, and even cracked a joke.
I think the best response for a non-New York politician to give is probably Sherrod Brown's. Brown said, first of all, that it's a local, New York issue, which it is, and also said, "We're not at war with a religion," which is the sort of thing that needs to be said, constantly, by people with consciences, in order to rebut assholes like Gingrich.
Pennsylvania candidate Joe Sestak has been accused of "dodging" the question, but his answer seems straightforward to me: He believes it's a New York issue and he supports the Constitution. (He has received the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg.)
Some perhaps surprising heroes include Grover Norquist, who makes the political case for supporting the project, and Ted Olson, a longtime Republican attorney whose wife died on 9/11. Olson forthrightly said, "We don't want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith."
Cowards
The coward's usual formulation of wishy-washy nonsupport is to proclaim that "they have a right to build it, but ..." While I'd argue that even if you don't feel like issuing a spirited defense of the specific project being debated, you can simply stop at "they have a right to build it" and retain some dignity, these politicians seem to think that they have to balance their respect for the Constitution with a healthy dose of skepticism about Muslims and acknowledged sympathy for hysterical opponents whipped up into a frenzy by lying propagandists.
Harry Reid decided to point out that while the First Amendment protects the rights of religious minorities to practice their religion, that doesn't mean that they should practice it where it might upset someone.
Howard Dean, too, thinks that religious minorities should respect the wishes of majorities of Americans and not go around building houses of worship in places where Americans don't want them. (Memo to Gov. Dean: One of the reasons so many Americans polled about the subject are opposed to it is because right-wing liars defined the entire debate from Day One. If you'd polled everyone in the nation back in, say, March, and asked, "Should there be an Islamic community center with a pool and an auditorium in lower Manhattan near City Hall and, yes, the WTC site?" I'm guessing it would've been a three-way split between support, oppose and don't give a shit. And even if "oppose" had still won that theoretical poll, it still wouldn't have been a good reason for the organizers to be more "sensitive" and find a new building.)
Some New York Democrats are just completely punting on the issue. Anthony Weiner refused to say anything about it for weeks, then issued a baffling letter that says nothing. Chuck Schumer, a man who stands no chance of losing reelection, and from whom a defense of religious liberties would've been celebrated and important, will only say he isn't opposed to the project.
Villains
They are mostly the obvious ones: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani -- all Republicans with a history of exploiting racial and ethnic tensions and resentments without regard for the consequences.
New York Democrats John Hall, Tim Bishop, Mike McMahon and Mike Arcuri all decided their best shot at reelection was joining the chorus against the project. Cowardice may have inspired them, but Arcuri's move, in particular, seems more villainous.
Rand Paul, supposed libertarian, thinks Muslims should give money to 9/11 memorials, presumably because of collective guilt, rather than construct community centers in their communities. (His opponent, Jack Conway, is a simple coward.)
Supposed Democrat Jeff Greene proved his independence from the party bigwigs by being grossly bigoted in the name of sensitivity to 9/11 victims he invented, in his head, while mangling the geography of lower Manhattan.:

The proposed $100 million Muslim center offered one such contrast. Greene echoed President Barack Obama's recent defense of religious freedom but said, "When those families go to mourn their losses, they shouldn't be looking at a mosque right there.''

(His opponent, Kendrick Meek, merely said he wouldn't "step in front of a decision that's already been made in New York City," which is halfway between cowardly and acceptable.)
The Confused, and Confusing
I think New York politicians have a responsibility to defend the project itself, while I'll let most non-New Yorkers off the hook for stopping at a defense of the principles involved (as long as they don't add a Reid-ian "but ...") and an acknowledgment that it's a "New York issue." But what about New Jersey politicians?
Well, who can even say where Chris Christie stands. The Republican New Jersey governor was celebrated for seeming to support the mosque, but his statement was actually just a defense of how independent and awesome Chris Christie is with a stupid and nonsensical "pox on both houses" line thrown in.
New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez supports the Constitution, but then changes the subject to jobs, the economy, etc.
Back in New York, Carolyn Maloney and her primary opponent, Reshma Saujani, both signaled their support for the project, but Saujani (a born panderer) supports it super hard, and claims Maloney only kinda supports it. I'm not convinced by Saujani's argument, but you can read Maloney's statement for yourself.
I might need to invent a separate "I think he actually means well but what the hell" category for Gov. David Paterson, who is, I think, trying very hard to be a peacemaker, as part of his "fuck it, I'm out of office soon anyway" tour '10. But his claims that he will give state land to the developers (which would be constitutionally iffy) and his repeated insistence that he's meeting with Cordoba Initiative representatives about moving the site (which they keep disputing) are just serving to support the idea that there's some compelling reason why they should move.
Kristen Gillibrand's support for the project seems halfhearted and overly cautious, but it's there.
And, yes, then there's the president. Had he stopped at his Friday night statement, a simple defense of religious liberty, I'd happily put him in the heroes category. But his Saturday non-clarification, stressing the fact that he doesn't explicitly support the project, completely muddied the issue. Was it a walk-back? Sort of! But also not quite! His response is a Rorschach test, and interpretations of it necessarily depend on impressions of the president himself.
The heroes list is depressingly short, the cowards and villains lists populated with people I wish weren't included, and while I understand that defending the project could be interpreted as "politicizing" the issue, I'm still depressed at how few "progressive" leaders are unable to mount simple, surprisingly necessary defenses of the fundamental rights of Americans to worship, or not, as they see fit.

JEFF BARNETT SCHEDULES Ten Town Hall Meetings Scheduled Across District

HERE is the town meeting schedule for Jeff Barnett, candidate for Representative of the 10th District of Virginia. Too bad Rep frank wolf (r VA) is too cowardly to debate Jeff in every county of the district as Mr Barnett proposed. Hope you will take the time to go to one of these meetings and find out more about Jeff Barnett's positions on the issues. Click the header to go to his campaign website.
 
Barnett Campaign Will Hold Ten Town Hall Meetings
McLean, VA -- Jeff Barnett, Democratic Nominee for Congress in Virginia’s 10th District, announced that he will hold ten town hall meetings across the District.
“Frank Wolf has agreed to one debate and one forum, but that’s not nearly enough. That’s why I’m putting together ten town hall meetings. 10th District residents deserve the opportunity to question their candidates on the issues they are most concerned about and to hear opposing views” said Jeff Barnett. “It’s disappointing that Frank Wolf is ducking the tough issues by refusing to debate me in more than one place, but these town hall meetings will allow voters to hear from at least one of their candidates directly,” Barnett continued. “I look forward to an open exchange of ideas about our future.” 
The schedule for the town hall meetings is as follows:
Chantilly: Monday, August 9 from 7:00-8:30PM at Chantilly Regional Library
McLean: Wednesday, August 11 from 7:00-8:30 at McLean Community Center
Manassas Park: Monday, August 16 from 7:00-8:30 at the Manassas Park Community Center
Great Falls: Tuesday, August 17 from 7:00-8:30 at Great Falls Library
Ashburn: Tuesday, August 24 from 7:00-8:30 at Ashburn Library
Leesburg: Wednesday, August 25 from 7:00-8:30 at Thomas Balch Library
Front Royal: Thursday, August 26 from 7:00-8:30 at Samuels Library
Winchester: Monday, August 30 from 7:00-8:30 at the Public Safety Building on Coverstone Drive
Warrenton: Wednesday, September 1 from 7:00-8:30 at the Warrenton-Fauquier Visitors Center
Herndon: Thursday, September 2 from 7:00-8:30 at the Herndon Fortnightly Library
“There is a stark contrast between the two candidates in this race,” said Marc Abanto, Jeff Barnett’s Campaign Manager. “Unlike his opponent, Jeff Barnett embraces the challenge of debating policy proposals. He is more than willing to talk to voters across the political spectrum. These town hall meetings will demonstrate Jeff’s command of the issues and prove the strength of Jeff’s approach to addressing the problems of the 10th District and of our nation.”

Did Obama Kill the Climate Bill? 22JUL10 & NEGATIVE ENERGY 2FEB10

UNFORTUNATELY, it turns out that dirty energy companies and greedy politicians and lack of moral courage by Pres Obama and Congress not only destroyed the climate bill, but the legislation that is now being introduced to "salvage" some climate change legislation only increases our dependence on coal and oil and provides tax payer funded tax brakes and subsidies for them too!

 

— By Josh Harkinson

| Thu Jul. 22, 2010 3:35 PM PDT

Update: Kate Sheppard reports on what actually made it into the  Senate's energy package.
The Senate's climate bill is officially dead. And given that Democrats will almost certainly hold fewer seats in Congress next year, major action on the climate is unlikely to be revived anytime soon. Andrew Revkin, Joe Romm, and Tim Dickinson place a fair share of the blame on Obama. From Dickinson's widely-quoted Rolling Stone piece yesterday:

Handled correctly, the BP spill should have been to climate legislation what September 11th was to the Patriot Act, or the financial collapse was to the bank bailout. Disasters drive sweeping legislation, and precedent was on the side of a great leap forward in environmental progress. In 1969, an oil spill in Santa Barbara, California – of only 100,000 barrels, less than the two-day output of the BP gusher – prompted Richard Nixon to create the EPA and sign the Clean Air Act. But the Obama administration let the opportunity slip away.

Early on, Obama failed to challenge blowhards such as Senator Jim Inhofe who distorted the science of global warming. Revkin points out that the president has not invited researchers and climate analysts to the White House (as even Bush did). And after BP's well blew out, Obama's infamously milquetoast address from the Oval Office never connected the disaster with the need for a cap on carbon. All of this wasn't for a lack of pressure from his allies. Nine high-profile environmental groups wrote a letter to the president pleading that "nothing less than your direct personal involvement" will break the logjam in the Senate. Al Gore ultimately said what Obama wouldn't:

Placing a limit on global-warming pollution and accelerating the deployment of clean energy technologies is the only truly effective long-term solution to this crisis. Now it is time for the Senate to act. In the midst of the greatest environmental disaster in our history, there is no excuse to do otherwise.

Of course, there's always an excuse in Washington. Voting for a climate bill might hurt the reelection prospects of swing-state Democrats. The Senate, exhausted in the wake of its tough votes heath care and financial reform, might have never overcome a filibuster. And, to be fair, Obama has already done more for the climate than any president before him. But no matter: The confluence of a huge Democratic congressional majority and a huge ecological catastrophe wrought by the fossil fuel industry could have presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rewrite the rules of climate politics. With a little bit of leadership. Unfortunately, a little bit of leadership on the climate is more than we've got right now.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• "We Know We Don’t Have the Votes"

  The climate bill dies (again).

• The Little Climate Bill That Couldn't

• Negative Energy

  A key bloc of Democrats has a climate Plan B: Ditch cap and trade for an energy bill filled with industry giveaways.
   
  http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/02/democrats-climate-plan-b
   

  Negative Energy

  

  — Flickr/James Jordan (Creative Commons)

  A key bloc of Democrats has a climate Plan B: Ditch cap and trade for an energy bill filled with industry giveaways.

  — By Kate Sheppard

  Tue Feb. 2, 2010 4:00 AM PST

  With the Senate cap-and-trade bill on ice for the foreseeable future, a key bloc of Democrats is agitating for a Climate Plan B: an existing energy policy bill they say would put the US on the path to a clean energy future. Make that a road to nowhere. The bill in question lacks any kind of cap on carbon, and contains so many concessions to the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear industries that one environmental group has dubbed it a "flashback to Bush energy policy."
  For months, a gaggle of centrist Democrats has tried to convince the party's leaders that they should abandon their push for a cap-and-trade scheme and instead settle for passing the energy measure that was approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last June. When Republican Scott Brown seized Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat in an upset victory, these Plan B proponents saw their chance. Since then, they've been vigorously arguing that capping carbon is a huge political risk that Democrats can't afford to take in an election year. "They're using uncertainty over the Obama agenda as a whole to reinvigorate their push," said Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy at the National Wildlife Federation.
  The Plan B crowd includes Democratic senators Jim Webb, Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln. It could also potentially pick up the Republicans who voted the energy measure out of committee: senators Lisa Murkowski, Sam Brownback, Bob Corker, and Jeff Sessions.
  Talk of a climate about-face intensified as news outlets reported last week that senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman—who are working to assemble a cross-party coalition to support climate legislation in the Senate—are planning to scrap a cap on carbon altogether. Graham, who was already on the record condemning the House and Senate cap-and-trade bills, declared in an interview with the New York Times that "some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs" is "dead." "Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere," he added.

  Abandoning the effort to put a cap on the emissions that are warming the planet could deal a death blow to the chances for an international climate treaty. Right now, other big emitters—China in particular—want to ensure the US makes meaningful cuts before showing their cards. When the Obama administration formally signed on to the Copenhagen accord last week, it pledged to reduce emissions "in the range of" 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020—but only if such a reduction is first passed into law by Congress.
  That's not the only problem. Even though supporters of the energy bill like Byron Dorgan tout the proposal as a way to "move us in the direction of a lower-carbon future," the legislation was not written with the aim of lowering pollution. In fact, the bill's numerous concessions to big energy interests could actually lead to more, not less, emissions.
  If signed into law, the measure would lift a ban on drilling for oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida—allowing oil extraction just 45 miles offshore.
  Daniel Lashof, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, also argues that the bill's measures to expand federal authority over the placement of power lines could increase emissions. More electricity infrastructure without a cap on carbon would make it easier to bring new coal plants online and increase output at existing facilities, said Lashof.
  And the handful of provisions in the bill that supposedly provide incentives for clean energy turn out to be pretty anemic. The proposal includes a new renewable electricity standard that requires utilities to produce 15 percent of power from renewable sources by 2021. But solar and wind advocates say that standard is actually less ambitious than the path that the industry is already on.
  The bill would also establish something called a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), which supporters claim will direct much-needed loans to the renewable energy sector. However, the bill's fine print ensures that the lion's share of the money will likely go not to start-up wind farms or solar panel factories, but to the nuclear industry. As Mother Jones has reported, the bill would empower the Department of Energy to hand out an unlimited number of loan guarantees to underwrite the construction of new nuclear plants without congressional review. This amounts to a massive giveaway to the nuclear industry, as construction costs have spiraled so dramatically over the past decade that the private sector now refuses to finance new plants. With the Congressional Budget Office warning that the chance of default on these loans is at least 50 percent, the energy bill could leave the taxpayer on the hook for billions.
  Supporters of the energy measure have argued that passing this bill alone is more politically feasible than getting cap and trade through the Senate. But although a bipartisan group of senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the measure, its prospects look very different in the wider Senate. Right now, cap and trade is drawing heavy fire from senators from states whose economies depend on forms of energy that would be penalized by a carbon cap. But if Democrats opted to advance a bill with no cap, that measure would then be attacked by the most dedicated supporters of a comprehensive climate solution. Already, 17 senators have written to Obama urging him to keep the focus on a comprehensive bill. Even Lindsey Graham, who has blasted the existing cap-and-trade bills, says the energy-only option is "not strong enough." "I'm not going to ask the environmental community to accept a compromise that doesn't in a serious way deal with our carbon pollution problems," he said last week. "You'll get some votes for a comprehensive package that you wouldn't get for stand-alone proposals."
  So what now? With a bloc of Democrats almost entirely written off, it seems Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are left figuring out just how much oil, gas, nuclear, and coal are needed to sweeten the deal for Republicans. Graham remains confident that they can figure out the right mix. "If we can make the energy piece attractive enough for Republicans, there's going to be more than a handful that would agree to emissions controls," he said. The Obama administration seems to have adopted the same strategy: In the energy portion of his State of the Union address, Obama spoke only of initiatives to encourage nuclear, oil, gas, and "clean" coal—and barely mentioned renewable energy.
  Kerry was adamant last week that despite the media reports, he, Graham, and Lieberman aren't abandoning the effort to cap on carbon emissions. But he admitted that they were open to other possibilities beyond the cap-and-trade scheme Democrats have been sweating over for the past year. "We're not stuck on one idea. We're looking for a way to come at this that gets the job done, but the job remains the same: addressing the real urgency of climate change," he said. "There are any number of ways of skinning this cat."
  

  Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here.

  
  

  If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

  • Boxer and Kerry Eschew Talk of Cap and Trade in Climate Bill Rollout

  • 17 Players Who Could Make or Break Cap and Trade

    Are Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Van Jones hot? Or not? You decide.

  • A Small but Important Part of Cap and Trade Legislation

  • Americans Support Cap and Trade After All?

  • Cap and Trade in the Dark?

  • Cap and Trade's Winners and Losers

   

Fear Factor: What's Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers? 28JUL10

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs lauded Elizabeth Warren as "a terrific candidate" to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: "I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her."
So why isn't the White House rushing to nominate her for the position? In a word: fear.
The same fear-based approach that caused the administration to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus before her name had even been uttered on Fox News is once again rearing its head in the decision-making process over Warren.
This time, it's not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama's backbone turning to mush -- it's the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out).
According to the National Journal, the banking industry "privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency." Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times, "whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks."
Warren is far and away the best person for the position. Picking her is a no-brainer. For many high-level positions, such as a Supreme Court justice, a president will often say he's looking for the "best candidate" when, in fact, there isn't one "best candidate." But this is that rare occasion when there truly is a single best candidate. When it comes to heading the Consumer Bureau, there is Elizabeth Warren -- and there is everybody else.
Not only is she one of the country's foremost experts on bankruptcy law and the multiple ways in which banks trick and trap consumers, she's been the leading advocate for the creation of the agency, which the banking industry worked night and day to kill. In fact, it was Warren who came up with the idea for the agency in the first place, in a paper she wrote in 2007. Her entire career has been devoted to the issues the agency is being created to address.
So obvious is the choice of Warren as the inaugural head of the Consumer Bureau that nearly a dozen senators and over 60 members of the House have already publicly come out in her favor. And over 200,000 people -- i.e. consumers -- have signed a petition urging her nomination.
Here are a few examples of the support she's getting:

• Sen. Al Franken: "In my consideration, I think Elizabeth would be the best."
• Rep. Barney Frank (chair of the House committee that drafted the financial reform bill): "She's far and away the best candidate."
• Sen. Bernie Sanders: "No one in our nation could do a better job."
• Rep. Rosa DeLauro: "In my living room with many members of congress, she predicted what was going to happen several years ago. As she put it in 2007, consumers cannot buy a toaster that has a one in five chance of bursting into flames but they can enter into a mortgage that has the same one in five chance of putting them out onto the street...Professor Warren we cannot, Ma'am, do it without you."
• Sen. Jeff Merkley: "I support Elizabeth Warren...She has both the clarity of the need for an agency that has as its top mission protecting citizens against tricks, traps and scams, and she has the ability to articulate that vision. She has the leadership skills and the knowledge of the financial world. She has the full set of requirements to be an effective leader."
• Sen. Tom Udall: "Should [the president] decide to nominate her to lead the Bureau, it will be a clear sign that the Bureau will be a champion for the American consumer, will stand up to unscrupulous actors and will not shrink from...fulfilling its mission under pressure."

Then there was this argument in her favor:

She is an enormously effective advocate for reform. Probably the most effective advocate for consumer protection in the country. She has huge credibility and she played a decisive role in helping make the public case for reform and she was early on this, way ahead of everybody else.

That, as it happens, was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking Sunday on ABC's This Week. So why has Geithner stopped short of endorsing Warren (and, indeed, privately argued against her)? And why, as HuffPost's Jason Linkins put it, is the White House still "hesitating, looking for all the world like it is going to veer away from tapping Warren for the sort of job she was born to do?"
Fear. You know what they say: give a man some fear, and you make him fearful for a day -- teach a man to scare himself, and you make him fearful for life. The administration has taken the lesson to heart.
And the courage-killing virus isn't confined just to one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Sen. Chris Dodd told NPR's Diane Rehm, "The question is, 'is she confirmable?' And there's a serious question about it." And today he challenged Robert Gibbs' assertion that Warren is "very confirmable": "How does he know that?" Dodd said to TPM.
Nothing fortifies your opponents like signaling your willingness to surrender. A different approach would be to do the right thing, welcome the fight, and make your case to the American people. "Are the Republicans, when we bring her name up, going to argue that she shouldn't be confirmed because she's too tough on the big banks and too tough on the financial industry?" asked Sen. Tom Harkin. "Boy, that'll get them a lot of votes in November!"
And if Senate Democrats don't have the stomach for the fight, there is a provision in the financial reform bill the president signed into law last week that allows the Treasury Secretary to name someone to head the Consumer Bureau until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee. And there is no clear deadline on how long the Secretary's appointee may serve. "The statute gives the Treasury Secretary the obligation to get it done, but doesn't tell him how to get it done," says Gail Hillebrand of the Consumers Union. "Consumers have been waiting a long time. The sooner we can get it off the ground the better."
So the administration has no excuses left for not nominating Warren -- including the threat of a Republican filibuster.
And given that her opponents, shameless though they are, can't just come out and say, "We're against her just because we're doing the banks' biding," what argument can they make? One currently being test-marketed is that because Warren is such a zealous advocate for consumers she would somehow be bad for "innovation." You know, the kind of innovation that brought us credit default swaps, teaser rates, 600 percent payday loan rates, and that led to widespread foreclosures and bankruptcies. This line of reasoning is akin to saying that we don't want our police force to be very vigilant, lest it diminish criminal innovation. Warren herself addressed this ludicrous claim in a paper in 2008:

Thanks to effective regulation, innovation in the market for physical products has led to greater safety and more consumer-friendly features. By comparison, innovation in financial products has produced incomprehensible terms and sharp practices that have left families at the mercy of those who write the contracts.

Which, of course, is exactly why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the first place. If someone with Warren's skill set and perspective isn't named to head it, why even bother creating it? Just so another banking industry shill has a place to cool his heels before adding a few zeros to his salary when he quits and joins the companies he was ostensibly regulating? Given that this is the usual M.O. of how regulatory agencies in Washington work, it's all the more important to name Warren so she can start the Consumer Bureau off on the right foot -- as a true voice for the people.
So which way will Obama go? If he makes his decision on the merits, Elizabeth Warren will be the first head of the Consumer Bureau. If he makes his decision out of fear, she won't be. For guidance, he should listen carefully to these words:

All too often -- our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens -- fell silent... if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.

That was Barack Obama in May of last year, talking about the Bush administration's approach to national security in the wake of 9/11. As he finds himself in a different kind of "season of fear," will he use his insights as a guide to his decision?
Appointing Elizabeth Warren will demonstrate that the detour his administration took to Feartown with Shirley Sherrod was a lesson learned.

Frank Wolf Refuses Jeff Barnett's Debate Challenge 21JUL10

FRANK WOLF IS A COWARD!!!! HIS CORPORATE OWNERS HAVEN'T GIVEN HIM PERMISSION TO DEBATE JEFF BARNETT BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN DEFEND HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WEALTHY, DENYING THE WORKING CLASS AND MIDDLE CLASS AND KOW-TOWING TO HIS POLITICAL MASTERS IN D.C. WHO TELL HIM WHAT LEGISLATION TO SUPPORT AND WHAT TO OPPOSE AND DO NOT ALLOW HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE ANY IDEA OF HIS OWN. HE HAS ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BECOME A LAPDOG, A SHADOW OF HIS FORMER POLITICAL SELF, MEANINGLESS EXCEPT AS A CONSISTENT VOTE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE 10TH DISTRICT , OF VIRGINIA AND THE NATION. THIS IS THE POLITICAL REALITY HE HAS CREATED FOR HIMSELF, AND WITH HIS REFUSAL TO DEBATE JEFF BARNETT HE HAS PUBLICLY DECLARED HIMSELF NOT WORTHY TO CONTINUE REPRESENTING THE 10TH DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA! CLICK THE HEADER TO GO TO THE BARNETT CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.

Barnett Calls for Open Exchange of Ideas

Rep. Frank Wolf, the 10th District’s 30-year incumbent Congressman, has refused an invitation to participate in debates across the District, the Barnett campaign reported on Wednesday. Barnett wrote to Wolf last month, proposing one debate in each County of the 10th District.

“In June, I challenged my opponent to make politics more about people – the people he represents,” Barnett said. “I suggested we debate in every county of our District because I think that voters – wherever they live – deserve to see their candidates debate the issues that matter to their communities. Having those discussions is one of the obligations – and privileges – of public service. It’s disappointing that Frank Wolf doesn’t agree.”

“Now is the time for our leaders to be discussing their differences openly,” Barnett continued. “Our economy is recovering from a staggering recession. Traffic is gridlocked. We are fighting two wars. These are times of great trial for our nation and our district, but they are also days of remarkable promise. The choice voters make this November will shape our future in profound ways. With so much at stake, it’s a shame that Frank Wolf would shy away from open debates about solving the problems we face. The 10th District deserves a Congressman who will stand up to the challenge of new ideas. The 10th District needs new leadership in Washington.”

“Frank Wolf’s office told us that one debate and one candidate forum would probably be sufficient, but the 10th District is demanding more accountability,” said Marc Abanto, Barnett's campaign manager. “Given Representative Wolf's opposition to much-needed Wall St. Reform and his longstanding support of big oil, it's no surprise that Frank Wolf is trying to limit the number of times he must publicly defend his record. Jeff Barnett will spend the month of August doing what Frank Wolf won't: having an open and vigorous discussion with voters.”

Elections shouldn’t be one-sided conversations. Frank Wolf might not be willing to talk to voters directly, but I am,” Barnett promised. “That’s why I am putting together a series of town hall meetings all across the District. I am committed to an honest discussion with Virginians of all political persuasions about our future. “
The Barnett campaign has scheduled eight town hall meetings. The full Town Hall schedule will be available on Thursday, July 22nd.

Former militiaman unapologetic for calls to vandalize offices over health care 25MAR10

This guy is sick, and a hypocrite as he receives disability checks from the U.S. government. If socialized medicine is so bad he should refuse this money. And he is a coward, he isn't out there throwing bricks, he isn't risking arrest, he is just running his BIG MOUTH. Pathetic.
By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
The call to arms was issued at 5:55 a.m. last Friday.

"To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW."

These were the words of Mike Vanderboegh, a 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama, who took to his blog urging people who opposed the historic health-care reform legislation -- he calls it "Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act" -- to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide.

"So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows," Vanderboegh wrote on the blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars. "Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM."

In the days that followed, glass windows and doors were shattered at local Democratic Party offices and the district offices of House Democrats from Arizona to Kansas to New York. At least 10 Democratic lawmakers reported death threats, incidents of harassment or vandalism at their offices over the past week, and the FBI and Capitol Police are offering lawmakers increased protection.

Local Democratic Party officials in New York have called for Vanderboegh's arrest, believing he is implicated in the vandalism in Rochester, but Vanderboegh said he has not yet been questioned by any law enforcement authorities.

Vanderboegh was unapologetic in a 45-minute telephone interview with The Washington Post early Thursday. He said he believes throwing bricks through windows sends a warning to Democratic lawmakers that the health-care reform legislation they passed Sunday has caused so much unrest that it could result in a civil war.

"The federal government should not have the ability to command us to buy something that it decides we should buy," Vanderboegh said. The government, he added, has "absolutely no idea the number of alienated who feel that their backs are to the wall are out here . . . who are not only willing to resist this law to the very end of their lives, but are armed and are capable of making such resistance possible and perhaps even initiating a civil war."

The law will set in motion over the next 10 years a complex series of changes to the nation's health insurance market. An estimated 24 million people who lack access to affordable coverage through their workplace will be eligible for tax credits to buy insurance on new state-based exchanges. Nearly everyone who earns less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level will become eligible for the government-run Medicaid. And for the first time, individuals will face fines of as much as $695 a year for refusing to buy insurance, and employers with more than 50 workers that do not provide coverage could also face significant fines.

Vanderboegh said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats should beware "unintended consequences of their actions." Vanderboegh outlined a complicated theory that IRS agents will go after people who refuse to buy insurance or pay the fines, ultimately resulting in "civil war."

"The central fact of the health-care bill is this, and we find it tyrannical and unconstitutional on its face," Vanderboegh said. "The federal government now demands all Americans to pay and play in this system, and if we refuse, we will be fined, and if we refuse to pay the fine, they will come to arrest us, and if we resist arrest . . . then we will be killed. The bill certainly doesn't say that, but that's exactly and precisely what is behind every bill like this."

He said his call for people to throw bricks is "both good manners and it's also a moral duty to try to warn people."

Vanderboegh, who lives in the Birmingham suburb of Pinson, described himself as a "Christian libertarian" and said he has long been a gun rights advocate. He said he joined a clandestine militia group called the "Sons of Liberty" and later became a public leader of the First Alabama Cavalry, Constitutional Militia.

In 2006, Vanderboegh advocated hurling bricks through the windows of members of Congress who supported giving illegal immigrants the same rights as U.S. citizens, according to news reports at the time. He said those bricks should be used to build a wall sealing off the United States from Mexico.

Vanderboegh has no criminal record in Jefferson County, Ala., according to a court clerk there.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist and hate groups, has been following Vanderboegh since the mid-1990s, when he first surfaced in Alabama militia groups, said Heidi Beirich, the center's research director.

"He has been on our radar forever," she said. "He hasn't been involved in any kind of violence that we know of ourselves, but these causes that he's involved in led to a lot of violence. The ideas that Vanderboegh's militia groups were pushing were the same extreme anti-government ideas that inspired [Timothy] McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing."

Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products.

Born in Michigan and raised in Ohio, Vanderboegh said he was not always a libertarian. He once was active in the Young Socialist Alliance and the Progressive Labor Party. "In my youth, I was a communist," he said. But in the mid-1970s, Vanderboegh read Friedrich von Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," among other books, and had an epiphany.

"From that point on, I could never take Marxism-Leninism seriously again," Vanderboegh said.

He said he long opposed President Obama because he believed the president has "collectivism" tendencies. But he became especially energized during the health-care debate.

Vanderboegh said he advocates breaking windows only of Democratic Party offices, not congressional offices, and that he does not condone the death threats and other incidents of harassment that some Democratic lawmakers have faced.

"Obviously I not only deplore or decry that, but I denounce that vigorously because it has nothing to do with what I was advocating," he said.

Still, Vanderboegh's public cry for vandalism has made him vulnerable to the same threats.

"Frankly," he said, "my phone's been ringing off the hook with death threats the last few days."

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

THE COWARDLY DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED NO ON HEALTH CARE 22MAR10

These are the Democrats who lacked the courage to vote for health care reform.

Following is a list of Democrats who voted against a bill that would extend health care coverage to more than 30 million Americans. The House passed the measure 219-212, with every Republican voting against it.

# John Adler (NJ)

# Jason Altmire (PA)

# Michael Arcuri (NY)

# John Barrow (GA)

# Marion Berry (AR)

# Dan Boren (OK)

# Rick Boucher (VA)

# Bobby Bright (AL)

# Ben Chandler (KY)

# Travis Childers (MS)

# Arthur Davis (AL)

# Lincoln Davis (TN)

# Chet Edwards (TX)

# Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)

# Tim Holden (PA)

# Larry Kissell (NC)

# Frank Kratovil (MD)

# Daniel Lipinski (IL)

# Stephen F. Lynch (MA)

# Jim Marshall (GA)

# Jim Matheson (UT)

# Mike McIntyre (NC)

# Michael McMahon (NY)

# Charlie Melancon (LA)

# Walt Minnick (ID)

# Glenn Nye (VA)

# Collin Peterson (MN)

# Mike Ross (AR)

# Heath Shuler (NC)

# Ike Skelton (MO)

# Zack Space (OH)

# John Tanner (TN)

# Gene Taylor (MS)

# Harry Teague (NM)