Conservative Republican ALEC-Linked Group Revealed As Attacking Average American's Most Fundamental Rights

Conservative Republican ALEC-Linked Group Revealed As Attacking Average American's Most Fundamental Rights

Last month, Maine voters delivered a major rebuke to Gov. Paul LePage (R) and the Republican-held legislature when they approved a referendum restoring election day voting registration rights in the state. Earlier this year, state legislators passed a bill repealing the state’s 38 year-old law allowing citizens to register at the polls on election day.

Tens of thousands of Mainers responded by petitioning for the matter come to a referendum. Issue 1 was one of the most-anticipated votes on election day this year, with pundits watching closely to see how citizens would react to the Republican-led war on voting, which ramped up in states across the country this year.

Recognizing the referendum’s importance, voting rights opponents poured money into the campaign to repeal election day registration. In fact, just two days after the state’s campaign finance reporting deadline, a secret conservative donor funneled $250,000 into the race, allowing the No On 1 campaign to make significant TV ad buys in an inexpensive media market.

Per state law, however, the identity of donors must be revealed within 45 days after the election. In fact, the entire $250,000 worth of late money came from a single source: the American Justice Partnership.

The AJP is a conservative legal organization based not in Maine, but in Michigan. On their website, the group states they are fighting against “the scheming George Soros money machine” which is “trying to sabotage your right to vote,” a claim apparently made without a hint of irony. Though the AJP doesn’t disclose where its funding comes from, the Bangor Daily News notes that it has partnered with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in the past, a group that has been instrumental in the proliferation of voter ID laws across the country.

The AJP’s secret $250,000 contribution ultimately accounted for over 78 percent of all the money raised by the No On 1 campaign. In other words, over three-quarters of the funding for opponents of election day registration in Maine came from Michigan. (This money was then used to run ads decrying “outsiders from other states” who were influencing the Maine election.) With Mainers of all stripes explaining to ThinkProgress why they cherish having the option to register at the polls on election day, it’s not altogether surprising that the predominance of financial support for No On 1 came from out of state.

Though AJP’s website correctly warns that “Your right to vote is at stake”, it’s groups like AJB and ALEC that are threatening that right in the first place. Maine voters stood up to the influence of voting rights opponents in November, however, passing Issue 1 by an overwhelming 61-39 margin and restoring election day registration in the Pine Tree State.

America Hater Newt Gingrich Has Ethics. They Just Happen to Be Abominable

America Hater Newt Gingrich Has Ethics. They Just Happen to Be Abominable

The GOP presidential primary is a lot like a kindergarten t-ball game: When it comes to being in first place, just about everybody gets a turn. And now, congratulations, Newt Gingrich: It’s your turn!

Steve Kornacki wrote about the Public Policy Polling survey that found Gingrich is following in the footsteps of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain as the Republican flavor of the week. Gingrich benefits from three things: A lot of Republicans can’t stand Mitt Romney, Cain and Perry have shamed themselves in public, and by contrast, he’s had no bad debates. So far he’s come off as smart and affable, trying to rally his rivals against the big, bad media that’s trying to get them to fight.

Since Gingrich has mostly been in single digits, far back in the polls, his rivals have humored him and ignored his liabilities. That’s about to change, and Gingrich, like Perry, Cain and Michele Bachmann before him, will likewise wither under the hot sun of political scrutiny. The seemingly affable professor and author is a hothead with many political liabilities and almost as many enemies. He’s committed so many political and ethical transgressions that his baggage has baggage.

Gingrich is probably best known for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery, so he could marry his mistress, whom he later divorced to marry a staffer. But he’s also probably the only politician, who when you’re asked “What’s the worst thing he’s done?” has done a lot of things that rival leaving his cancer-stricken wife for his mistress. For most people in the world, in fact, that would be the hands-down worst act ever; for Gingrich, it’s just not that clear-cut (h/t Jamie Kilstein).

For instance, he’s the only House speaker in American history to be disciplined by Congress for ethics violations.  In 1998, he paid a $300,000 fine after he was found to have been misusing his tax-exempt foundations for political gain.

OK, those have to be the two worst things, dumping his wife who had cancer for his mistress, and congressional ethics sanctions, right?

But wait, but there’s more:

    Shutting down the government in 1995 at least partly because President Clinton allegedly snubbed him by seating him in the rear of Air Force One on a flight home from Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral. No, really, he told reporters the “snub” was “part of why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing resolution.”
    Advocating that the children of welfare recipients be taken away from their parents and raised in orphanages.
    Leading the drive to impeach Clinton over lying about adultery when he was himself lying about adultery, cheating on his wife with a staffer, Callista Bisek, who became his third wife.
    Insisting President Obama suffers from “a Kenyan anti-colonial mindset” like his Kenyan father, even though he barely knew his Kenyan father.
    Denouncing Paul Ryan’s radical budget (that was actually smart) as “right-wing social engineering,” then flip-flopping and warning that “any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood.”
    Railing against Obama’s alleged “class warfare” when he’s run up a $500,000 tab at Tiffany’s.
But my all-time favorite Newt Gingrich “worst” was the time he blamed the horrendous case of Susan Smith, the South Carolina mother( a Republican who was having an affair with her Republican father-in-law) who murdered her young sons in 1994, on Democrats. Smith, you’ll recall, first blamed her son’s drowning deaths on a black man who supposedly car-jacked her, but it turned out, she did it herself. Just before the 1994 election, in which his party swept back into power, Gingrich said:

     I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things. The only way you get change is to vote Republican. That’s the message for the last three days.

Two days later, Gingrich defended his comments by insisting he’d been saying the same thing for years: that Democratic rule had frayed the moral fabric of the country: “We need very deep change if we’re going to turn this country around.” Asked directly if he was saying electing Republicans could stop killings like Smith’s, he said flatly: “Yes. In my judgment, there’s no question.”

He later blamed the Columbine and Virginia Tech killings on liberals, too.

America has never been perfect, but its "moral" fabric has always been in most danger by conservatism. Conservatism - forget the names of the political parties Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives were in both parties until the 1980s - has always been the biggest threat to America. Conservatism by its very nature is anti-American. Conservatism as a movement has more in common with the ultra-nationalism of the Japanese leading up to WW II. Gingrich fits in perfectly. he believes in a dog-eat-dog culture and economy. He believes America should be ruled by the elite and voting rights given only to those who believe in the far Right agenda.


Scott Walker recall, Day 1, by the numbers and you can download a Walker recall form here. Beware of false recalls conservative nuts who will throw your recall petition in the trash.

Individual Health Insurance Mandate Was Newt Gingrich’s Idea, And Mitt Romney Implemented It

Individual Health Insurance Mandate Was Newt Gingrich’s Idea, And Mitt Romney Implemented It

On the same day the Supreme Court announced it would take up lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) took aim at GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney and insurgent Newt Gingrich for their role in crafting one of the law’s key components — the individual mandate:

    BACHMANN: Our candidate can’t be compromised. We have candidates that are compromised on the individual health care mandate, which is Obamacare. It was Newt Gingrich’s idea, and Mitt Romney implemented it.

Watch it:

In many ways, Bachmann is absolutely right. The concept of the individual mandate actually originated at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but Gingrich was an early and strong supporter. “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” Gingrich said on Meet the Press in 1993. He supported it as recently as 2007, writing in a Des Moines Register op-ed, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance.”

Romney himself pointed this out in a debate, saying, “Actually Newt, we got the idea of the individual mandate from you…and the Heritage Foundation.” And of course, as has been repeatedly noted, the groundbreaking universal health care program Romney implemented as governor of Massachusetts was very similar to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and employed the individual mandate. Romney actively lobbied for the mandate
to be included in his reform.

Conservatives stand for something. The problem seems to be they and the rest of America can't figure out exactly what conservatives stand for. They seem pretty consistent about standing up for the financial elite at the expense of average Americans. They're consistent about wanting to start unending wars. They're all for gutting the safety net they helps millions of seniors and the disabled out of poverty. Who knows someday conservatives might stand for something that is pro-America. Though don't hold your breath.

Why Should Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from ruling on the Affordable Care Act

Why Should Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from ruling on the Affordable Care Act

The proto-fascist National Review Online's Increasingly Dishonest Push For Kagan To Recuse Herself From Health Care Case

National Review Online's Carrie Severino is still pursuing her quixotic quest to have Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recused from any cases dealing with the Affordable Care Act. In a recent blog post and report, Severino has concluded that based on the evidence she has seen, Kagan should "recuse herself from any consideration of [the Affordable Care Act's] legality before the Supreme Court."

The charge is baseless. Kagan has said that she had not been involved in any substantive discussions of the health care reform law, the constitutionality of the law, or litigation involving the law.

And importantly, faced with the same evidence that she's now citing, Severino acknowledged back on April 11 that she didn't  "see enough evidence to know whether Justice Kagan must recuse herself from considering the upcoming Obamacare challenges."

The facts haven't changed, but Severino's conclusions certainly have. It seems that Severino hoped she would find a smoking gun that required Kagan's recusal. And when she failed in that attempt, Severino simply reversed herself on what those facts mean.

Severino's Judicial Crisis Network put out a report arguing that Kagan took part in strategizing about health care reform litigation when she was solicitor general in the Obama administration and therefore must recuse herself from considering the case as a judge.

Severino's report cites a January 2010 email from Kagan's then-deputy in the solicitor general's office, Neal Katyal, responding to an Obama administration request that the solicitor general's office send a representative to a meeting to discuss how to defend the health care bill from legal challenges. In the email Katyal said, "Let's crush them. I'll speak to Elena and designate someone [to attend]." Katyal then became the solicitor general's office's point person on health care litigation.

But Severino already knew about this exchange on April 11 when she said there was no evidence requiring Kagan to recuse herself. Indeed, Severino cited that e-mail in an April 1 blog post about the recusal issue.

Severino next cites an email in which Katyal said he would "bring in Elena as needed." Severino noted this exchange in her April 1 blog post as well.

Severino then cites an email in which Katyal said he wanted to make sure the office was "heavily involved even in the dct [District Court]." Severino noted this exchange in her April 1 blog post as well.

Severino also argues that, because some material has been redacted from FOIA disclosures due to an exemption for certain privileged materials, Kagan needs to recuse herself. As an example, Severino cites an email in which Katyal says, "In light of this, for what it is worth, my advice (I haven't discussed this with Elena, but am cc'ing her here) would be that we start assembling a response, [material redacted] so that we have it ready to go." This email (including the redaction) was the third in a set of documents to which Severino linked in her April 1 blog post. As a whole, the redactions were almost impossible to miss in that set of documents.

So almost every piece of evidence Severino cites in her report consists of something she already mentioned on April 1. And all of the evidence was available by then. And yet on April 11, she concluded that there was nothing she had yet seen that required Kagan's recusal.

Furthermore, Severino is not the only conservative who has come to the conclusion that these documents did not require Kagan's recusal. Based on the same set of documents, Terry Jeffrey of the conservative CNS News wrote on March 29:

    Did Kagan at any time as solicitor general express an "opinion concerning the merits" of the lawsuits filed against the health care law -- an act that would trigger one of the recusal standards in 28 U.S.C. 455? In the text of the emails the Justice Department provided to CNSNews.com, Kagan does not do so.

So what has changed since Severino said that she didn't see anything that required Kagan's recusal? Well, for one thing, conservative judicial icons Jeffrey Sutton and Laurence Silberman have written decisions upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Maybe the anti-health care reform forces are just getting desperate.

As is usually the case with conservatives their arguments are not based on honor or principles but what they want. They want things the way a child is obsessed with wanting something. There is no rhyme or reason, they're just going to whine and cry until they get what they want. That is actually most of what the radical right-wing National Review stands for - they demand things and they're going to throw a temper tantrum until they get it.

Koch Brother Front Group Americans For Prosperity Pushes Smear Campaign Against Me By Lee Fang

Levi Russell, Americans for Prosperity Director of Public Affairs, contributed to a blog post calling Lee a "liar." Russell, however, erroneously quoted the conversation and has refused to issue a correction.

Levi Russell, Americans for Prosperity Director of Public Affairs, contributed to a blog post calling me a “liar.” Russell, however, erroneously quoted the conversation and has refused to issue a correction.

Yesterday, Americans for Prosperity, the corporate front group founded and financed by the Koch Brothers, posted a blog post titled: “Lee Fang Lies.” The post, which was Tweeted and promoted by other conservative groups, accuses me of misrepresenting myself at the Americans for Prosperity Defending the Dream Summit last Friday. The allegations are all demonstrably false. I called AFP on the phone today to explain that their post was false and gave them an opportunity to retract it. The Americans for Prosperity’s Levi Russell, the press person involved in the smear, responded: “No, I’m not going to correct it.”

The Americans for Prosperity blog post claims that, in order to receive a press credential, I said that I was a student from California (view a copy of the post here):

    Lee Fang, a blogger with “Think Progress,” lied to event organizers about his residency and status in an attempt to gain media access to the Defending the American Dream Summit, held this past weekend at the Washington Convention Center. Fang told Americans for Prosperity Foundation that he is a student “visiting from California,” who “had to fly home tomorrow” and had really hoped to cover the event.

    However, Fang is listed as a “resident of Prince George’s County, Maryland” on his ThinkProgress author page. His wikipedia page says that he “attended college at the University of Maryland, College Park.” [...] Fang regularly impugns conservative authors as dishonest, yet characteristic of his reporting, his preferred tactic is dishonesty and lies.

I did say that I live in California, and that I was hoping to attend the conference before going home the next day. That is because I live in California and was traveling home that Saturday. Despite Americans for Prosperity’s best research efforts, I moved away from my native Prince George’s County several years ago, and relocated finally to northern California about seven months ago. The biography page cited by Americans for Prosperity is obviously out of date. Moreover, Americans for Prosperity never reached out for a clarification and, if they had looked past Wikipedia, I broadcast the fact that I now live in California on a regular basis when I appear on television and radio.

Unfortunately for Americans for Prosperity, I had been interviewing folks going into to the event on my way into the conference, and had a voice recorder still on in my pocket during the exchange with the group’s media staffers. The transcript of the entire conversation between myself, my ThinkProgress colleague Travis Waldron, and the Americans for Prosperity media staff is on tape, and clearly shows that I introduced myself as a ThinkProgress reporter, not a “student.” Click more at the bottom of the screen to read a transcript of the tape, or listen below here:

Contacted today, Americans for Prosperity public affairs director Levi Russell said he was responsible for the post because he “wanted to call you out.” Russell would not tell me the last name of the other Americans for Prosperity staffer I spoke to, who identified himself as Adam. Asked to issue a correction and apology for the smear, Russell said: “No, I’m not going to correct it.”

The fake patriots who call themselves conservatives smear for the same reasons they whine and throw temper tantrums. bringing truth and honor into the discussion just makes their pointed heads spin.

Herman Cain, the right-wing cretin who wouldn't know what honorable behavior was if he tripped over it Calls Democratic Minority Leader Princess Nancy

Banana Republic Democracy In Wisconsin Guns Welcome Cameras Excluded

Banana Republic Democracy In Wisconsin Guns Welcome Cameras Excluded

Eighteen people were arrested Tuesday for using cameras in the Wisconsin Assembly gallery, including the editor of The Progressive magazine, Matt Rothschild.

Rothschild and others had gone to the capitol to protest a series of arrests in recent weeks of individuals who carried signs or took photos or video in defiance of an Assembly ban.

"We ought to have a right to take a picture," Rothschild said.
Guns, Yes. Cameras, No.

The protest was organized through a Facebook event called "Concealed Camera Day at the Capitol!" The event coincided with the implementation of Wisconsin's new concealed carry law, which allows residents to carry a concealed firearm -- including inside the Assembly gallery.

Stephen Colbert said Governor Walker was bringing "a new freedom to America's dairyland" with the concealed carry law, but said people would not see "images of gunfire in the statehouse" because of the camera ban. "Thank God. Cameras are dangerous," he said.

On the agenda in Tuesday's session was a bill to institute the Castle Doctrine, a "shoot first, ask questions later" bill that gives a person immunity from civil and criminal liability if they shoot another in self defense in their home, work, or vehicle. The American Legislative Exchange Council also has a model Castle Doctrine bill -- see the side-by-side here.

Event organizers were clear that the protests were not about the gun laws, but instead about protecting First Amendment rights.
But is it Legal?

The Open Meetings law includes this provision (§19.90):

    "Use of equipment in open session. Whenever a governmental body holds a meeting in open session, the body shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting. This section does not permit recording, filming or photographing such a meeting in a manner that interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants."

The statute also contains this provision (§ 19.87(2)):

    "No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule."

The legal issue here appears similar to the one that arose in the challenge to Governor Walker's collective bargaining law. In that case, Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne alleged that the union-busting law should be struck down because it was passed in violation of another provision of the Open Meetings law requiring notice. In part, Ozanne's challenge failed because the legislature had passed a rule that trumped the Open Meetings law.

Likewise, here the Assembly had a rule banning cameras and video, but under the court's ruling in the Ozanne suit, that rule trumped the Open Meetings law permitting their use.

Despite this, both the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions have provisions protecting the right to free speech, free assembly, and a free press. "The gallery is a free speech area," says attorney Jim Mueller, who was ticketed in October for violating the Assembly rule. "Even if there are rules against signs, they're unconstitutional. It is our right to peaceably assemble and petition the government."

If we said how funny it was that Governor Walker and other Rethugicans allowed guns but no sunshine from the free press, we would be mistaken in thinking this is some kind of weird aberration of the the Soviet Union's old Politburo here in the U.S. There is nothing strange here. Republicans know that the greatest threat to their anti-American, anti-Democracy agenda is letting the public know what they're doing. Sunshine, like that brought by cameras and recorders is the kind of disinfectant that conservatives know will shine a light on their shady corrupt style of gov'mint. 

Erick Erickson Is Proud to Be a Serial Lying Unamerican Pundit

Erick Erickson Is Proud to Be a Serial Lying Unamerican Pundit

Suzy Khimm points us to redstate.org leader and right-wing establishment figure @ewerickson declares he is "one of the 53%": part of this generation's "silent majority" who are upset at #occupywallstreet and its attacks on the top 1%:

What Erick says:

    I work three jobs.

    I have a house I can't sell.

    My family insurance costs are outrageous.

    But I don't blame Wall Street.

    Suck it up you whiners.

    I am the 53% subsidizing you so you can hang out on Wall Street and complain.

Erick should blame not Wall Street but the health-insurance industry for the fact that his family insurance costs are outrageous--but at least come 2014 the Obama-Romney Affordable Care Act will give him the bargaining power that those of us who work for large organizations have in the health insurance marketplace and lower his insurance costs to more reasonable levels.

Erick should blame Wall Street for the fact that he can't sell his house: had Wall Street not broken mortgage finance, and had the breaking of mortgage finance not led to the general credit crunch that launched our Lesser Depression, then Erick would be able to sell his house.

And it is not clear to me what Erick's three jobs are: his internet biographies mention (i) right-wing internet community organizer, (ii) CNN commentator, and (iii) radio host. Are these his "three jobs"? Most of us would say that those are three aspects of one occupation--not three jobs. People who work three jobs are people who teach elementary school in the morning and early afternoon, take a shift at the car wash around dinnertime, and work a pre-dawn shift at a 24-hour 7-11. That does not sound like Erick, Son of Erick to me.

Wall Street stole $17 trillion of the nations wealth. The protesters just want a job that pays a living wage ( currently there are about 6 applicants for every job opening). So welfare queen Erik looks at these facts and declares the protesters are bad and the Wall Street vampires are good. Erik, like the vast majority of right-wing conservatives has some deeply corrupt values. He and his friends would fit right in with the crony economic system of Russia. If they hate America so much and think our traditional American values are so awful Erik and his 53% are welcome to pack up and leave.

Lessons for Modern Conservatives Ronald Reagan Increased Taxes and the Economy Picked Up

Lessons for Modern Conservatives Ronald Reagan Increased Taxes and the Economy Picked Up

In 1982, with the economy struggling badly and unemployment pushing 11%, President Reagan agreed to a tax increase. Under the thinking that dominates Republican thought in the 21st century, such a policy would, of course, represent true insanity. After all, “everyone knows” tax increases “kill jobs.” If there was already a jobs crisis, why would Reagan dare do such a thing?

At the time, the right was livid, and made all kinds of drastic predictions about the consequences of this misguided policy. Bruce Bartlett, a former official in the Reagan administration, this week flagged a letter U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Richard Lesher sent to Congress in August 1982, analyzing the proposed tax increase:

“If H.R. 4961 is passed in these troublesome economic times, we have no doubt that it will curb the economic recovery everyone wants. It will mean a lower cash flow as more businesses pay more taxes, with a depressing effect on stock prices. It will reduce incentives for the increased savings and investment so badly needed to improve productivity and create more jobs. It will mean higher prices for many products and services. It will increase government costs in caring for those who, because the economy is held down, cannot find employment.”

As Bruce noted in his column, “It would be hard to find an economic forecast that was more wrong in every respect.” He added that it wasn’t the Chamber that had it backwards.

Economist Arthur Laffer told his clients on July 26, 1982, that the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raised taxes by about one percent of GDP, “will stifle economic recovery,” “retard economic growth,” and undercut “the economy’s ability to enter into a period of expansion.” On August 20, 1982, he told his clients that TEFRA “will tend to lengthen and deepen the recession.” Writing in the New York Times on September 12, 1982, economist Norman Ture said the administration’s claim that TEFRA would promote economic growth was “bizarre.” He said it would “weaken the impetus for economic growth” and make the economic recovery “less certain and less vigorous.”

All of this, we now know, wasn’t even close to being right. Almost immediately after Reagan raised taxes by quite a bit, the economy began to soar.

This isn’t just some historical footnote. This is worth keeping in mind because the basics of modern Republican economic thought are, quite literally, always wrong. It’s not a matter of ideological or philosophical differences — these questions have been put to the test, repeatedly for decades, and the tenets of conservative economic policy have an unyielding track record of failure.

It’s awfully embarrassing, or at least would be if they were called on it more.

Perhaps the only good thing about modern Republican economic thought is how easy it is to recite its pillars: tax increases always make the economy worse, tax cuts always make the economy boom, and public investment will always make the economy worse.

But pesky facts keep getting in the way.

In 1982, Reagan raised taxes and the right assured Americans this would be a disaster. The right was wrong, and the economy boomed.

OK, the economy did not "boom" but we did start to climb out of the recession. Taxes are not bad for economic growth. No matter how much right-wing zealots say so. Tax cuts only make people who are doing very well even richer as the working class takes a beating, education takes a beating and cuts to Medicaid hurt seniors. Taxes help pay for roads, fire departments, good teachers, science research and lots of other things that serve as a basic for the economy.