The Daily Beast is dubbing the Environmental Protection Agency's new clean power plan "Obamacare for the Air" in part because it is "intensely polarizing." But the reason that the standards are "polarizing" is that, just like with Obamacare's individual mandate, Republicans have abandoned their previous support for addressing this pressing issue with market-based policies as they move further to the extreme right.
On June 2, the EPA proposed the first standards for carbon pollution from existing power plants, which would allow states flexibility on how to achieve the pollution cuts. States could, for instance, mandate installations of new clean power technology or join regional cap-and-trade programs that take a market-based approach to promoting clean power. The Daily Beast's Jason Mark labeled the standards "Obamacare for the Air" because both plans are "numbingly complex," "based on a market system," "likely to transform a key sector of the economy," and "guaranteed to be intensely polarizing." The Christian Science Monitor's David Unger similarly compared the standards to Obamacare in part because they are "controversial." The editor in chief of the Daily Beast, John Avalon adopted the analogy on CNN's New Day, calling it a "long-time liberal priority."
Both articles left out why the EPA standards are contentious among the political class: it's not because the proposals are "liberal," but rather because the Republican party has shifted so far to the right that it now attacks proposals that it once advocated for. Many prominent Republicans supported a cap-and-trade program before Barack Obama was elected president, just as they once supported the individual mandate in Obamacare. In fact, the greenhouse gas emissions cuts that Sen. John McCain proposed during the 2008 election were far more extensive than the EPA's current proposal. The video below by Media Matters Action Network shows how Republicans used to talk about climate change in ways that they never would today:
As the Republican Party shifted to the right, so too did the conservative media. The Wall Street Journal editorial board previously stated that "the Bush Administration should propose a domestic cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide that could, of course, be easily expanded to Canada and Mexico. And then to Latin America. And then the world." Now the paper's editorials deride this conservative idea as "cap-and-tax." Yet mainstream reporters are often loathe to point out this profound shift, sticking instead to "both-sides-to-blame reporting."
The Daily Beast published a piece by former CNN host Campbell Brown on a controversial California education trial without disclosing Brown's ties to anti-teachers union groups.
Earlier this year, lawyers spent "more than two months" in state court arguing the Vergara v. California trial, a case which The Washington Post's Valerie Strauss called a "deeply misguided lawsuit" that "is ostensibly about one thing -- protecting students -- but is really about attacking teachers unions and the due process rights for teachers." On May 29, The Daily Beast ran a piece by Brown titled, "Vergara v. California: The Most Important Court Case You've Never Heard Of," which asserted that the trial "is about equity" because it "takes aim at laws that go directly to the heart of a good education":
Vergara v. California takes aim at laws that go directly to the heart of a good education: the ability to have, keep, and respect good teachers and dismiss utterly failing ones. Specifically, the suit challenges California laws that create three sets of problems, all of them undermining a school's ability to act in the best interest of students.
What Brown doesn't bother to mention and what The Daily Beast neglects to include in the post is that Brown has multiple conflicts of interest when it comes to matters of education, especially teachers. Brown's husband Dan Senor sits on the board of StudentsFirstNY, a group that actively opposes teachers unions and tenure. In addition, Brown launched a venture last year called the Parents' Transparency Project (PTP), a purported "watchdog group" that Mother Jones' Andy Kroll took a closer look at in October 2013:
Shortly after it was launched in June, PTP trained its sights on the New York mayoral race, asking the candidates to pledge to change the firing process for school employees accused of sexual misconduct. When several Democratic candidates declined, perhaps fearing they'd upset organized labor, PTP spent $100,000 on a television attack ad questioning whether six candidates, including Republican Joe Lhota and Democrats Bill de Blasio and Anthony Weiner, had "the guts to stand up to the teachers' unions."
Another consulting firm working with Brown's group is Tusk Strategies, which helped launch Rhee's StudentsFirst. Advertising disclosure forms filed by PTP list Tusk's phone number, and a copy of PTP's sexual-misconduct pledge--since scrubbed from its website--identified its author as a Tusk employee. (Tusk and Revolution declined to comment. Brown referred all questions to her PR firm--the same one used by StudentsFirst.)
The New York Daily News also reported that Brown recently launched a website to "influence the direction of [New York City's] ongoing contract talks with the teachers union."
Vergara v. California has significant implications for the future of teaching in the state. LA Weekly referred to the case as the "Vergara Time Bomb," asking if "a judge [will] tear down California teacher protection laws," while Daily Kos concluded that "The Vergara lawsuit has nothing to do with a good education for the disadvantaged, and has everything to do with destroying the power of unions. And if it succeeds, it could set a very dangerous precedent across the nation."
The Daily Beast misleadingly accused Hillary Clinton of claiming credit for sanctions that the State Department opposed by selectively highlighting a portion of a speech she gave. In reality, Clinton was referring to her successful efforts to help pass a 2010 Iran sanction bill and convince major firms to divest from Iranian oil.
In a May 16 post, The Daily Beast's senior national security and politics correspondent Josh Rogin highlighted a recent speech by Clinton at the American Jewish Committee. During the appearance, Clinton said "With the help of Congress, the Obama administration imposed some of the most stringent crippling sanctions on top of the international ones." Rogin claimed Clinton was "referr[ing] indirectly to a series of bills passed from 2009 through 2012 that attacked Iran's ability to export goods, participate in international financial markets, and continue with its illicit activities and money laundering" and suggested that Clinton was being deceitful by pointing out that high-ranking officials in the White House and the State Department, under Clinton's leadership, opposed some of the sanctions.
But Rogin's charge ignores the rest of Clinton's speech. In the portion of the speech that Rogin did not include in his post, Clinton said that the U.S. legislation she referenced was "building on the framework established by" sanctions passed by the UN's Security Council in June 2010, making it clear that she was referring not to every sanction proposal, but specifically to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. Clinton played a critical role in brokering a deal to guarantee passage of those sanctions, which passed weeks after the UN sanctions:
CLINTON: So we went to the UN Security Council and proposed some of the toughest multilateral sanctions ever on record. I worked for months to round up the votes. It reminded me of the back-room negotiations in the Senate with all the horse-trading, arm-twisting, vote counting that go into passing any major legislation. In the end we were successful. After years of division, the international community came together and sent a very strong, unified message to Iran.
And then building on the framework established by the United Nations Security Council, with the help of Congress the Obama administration imposed some of the most stringent crippling sanctions on top of the international ones, and so did our European partners. Our goal was to put so much financial pressure on Iran's leaders that they would have no choice but to come back to the negotiating table with a serious offer. We went after Iran's oil industry, banks, and weapons programs, enlisted insurance firms, shipping lines, energy companies, financial institutions and others to cut Iran off from global commerce. Most of all, I made it my personal mission to convince the top consumers of Iran's oil to diversify their supplies and buy less from Tehran. That was no easy sell. Remember, this was taking place in the midst of the global economic slowdown.
Clinton's efforts to make sure CISADA passed have been documented and back up her statement that she and the Obama administration were successful. As The New York Times reported in 2010, Clinton "brokered a last-minute compromise with House leaders on the Iran sanctions bill."
Clinton also pointed to her record of influencing "top consumers of Iran's oil to diversify their supplies and buy less from Tehran." Her record here is also well-established. State Department fact sheets show that, as a result of CISADA's passage and the State Department's diplomacy under Clinton, the department sanctioned companies for "doing business with Iran's energy sector," and persuaded "five major multinational oil firms to withdraw all significant activity in Iran, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars."
As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank pointed out on May 13, right-wing media have been quick to falsely tie Hillary Clinton to the kidnapping of over 234 young school girls by an extremist group known as Boko Haram, which The New York Times described as a "cultlike Nigerian group" known for "senseless cruelty and capricious violence against civilians."
Milbank noted that the "nascent effort to pin blame for Boko Haram on Clinton ... shows how a scandal is born" -- highlighting the fact that while the abduction of hundreds of Nigerian school girls "has little to do with the United States," right-wing media have seized the opportunity to search "for ways to blame the kidnappings on the favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination." And "inevitably the accusations landed on the House floor," parroted by Republican congressmen.
The smear kicked off with a Daily Beast article that relied on an anonymous official criticizing the former Secretary of State for previously turning down requests to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization, implying that such a designation could have prevented the kidnapping.
Jumping to Fox News, host Steve Doocy argued that if Clinton had designated Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization, it could have "saved these girls earlier," while anchor Megyn Kelly pushed the notion that Clinton had tried to appease Boko Haram.
Conservative congressmen picked up the baton, reportedly arguing on the House floor that Clinton "protected" Boko Haram.
But as Media Matters has explained, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the first to blacklist top Boko Haram leaders, as the State Department identified three Boko Haram leaders as "foreign terrorists" in June 2012.
According to Reuters, the group's leaders were identified as terrorists rather than the group itself so as not to "elevate the group's profile," and academic experts on Africa agreed that such a group designation could embolden the terrorist group.
To use Milbanks' words, it's the "textbook example of the anatomy of a smear."
A Daily Beast article relying on anonymous criticism of Hillary Clinton was latched onto by conservative media, who selectively quoted the article to smear the former Secretary of State for not officially designating the Nigerian group Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization.
As Maggie Haberman noted in Politico May 10, following the kidnapping of Nigerian school girls by Boko Haram, conservatives began hyping a report from the Daily Beast which quoted an anonymous official criticizing the former Secretary of State for previously turning down requests to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, implying that such a designation could have prevented the kidnapping.
The "actual details," as Haberman explained, revealed that experts at State were concerned an official designation would negatively elevate the group and lead to an inhumane response from Nigeria (emphasis added):
Clinton found herself on the receiving end of questions about the kidnap of 300 Nigerian girls. The Daily Beast reported that Clinton's State Department declined entreaties from congressional Republicans and others to label Boko Haram, the group responsible for the kidnappings, a terrorist organization. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the group that designation last year.
During Clinton's time at State, "The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials," the Beast quoted a former senior U.S. official familiar with the discussion as saying.
Republicans have widely circulated the original Daily Beast story. The actual details of why the Clinton-run Department declined to affix the group with terrorist status are complicated- her former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, was reportedly concerned about elevating the group among extremist outfits, and potentially giving the Nigerian government latitude to go after them in an inhumane way.
Media Matters has explained that Clinton did put top Boko Haram leaders on the terrorist list, and academic experts on Africa confirmed the Department's fears that a designation for the whole organization could have severe negative consequences. Additionally, before Boko Haram was ultimately designated an official terrorist organization under Secretary Kerry, the group had been a part of peace talks with the Nigerian government which were reportedly "on the verge" of producing a ceasefire. As soon as the designation became official, they abandoned the talks.
Some of this relevant context was included in the original Daily Beast article, but was buried toward the end. Conservative media were able to conveniently ignore the details while promoting the out-of-context attack on Clinton's tenure.
If you are a woman, you no longer have the same rights you had 41 years ago.
January 22 is the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, in which the court ruled that women have a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion.
But in the intervening decades, that right has largely disappeared, a process helped by media outlets that have misinformed on these safe and legal health procedures.
Thanks to Supreme Court rulings that came after Roe, states are now free to regulate and restrict abortion so long as new laws do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose. But state legislatures are currently testing what qualifies as an undue burden, and in 2013 alone 70 different anti-choice restrictions were adopted in 22 states across the U.S. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute, more abortion restrictions have been enacted in the past three years than in the entire previous decade.
In December, Ian Millhiser and Tara Culp-Ressler published a thoughtful piece about this process at ThinkProgress headlined, "The Greatest Trick The Supreme Court Ever Pulled Was Convincing The World Roe v. Wade Still Exists." They argued that while a woman's right to choose an abortion is still ostensibly covered by the constitution, the reality is that right is increasingly restricted to just wealthy women who happen to live in (or are able to travel to) one of the few states that will still permit them the opportunity to exercise that right.
This sustained attack on women's rights is fast becoming a key issue for politicians in the 2014 midterms. But the media have also played a sizeable role in this process, contributing to the vanishing power of Roe by allowing anti-choicers to control the conversation.
Daily Beast contributor Eli Lake claimed that the Obama administration might have committed a "serious blunder" in its response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi by not sending enough military support. But Lake's claim, based on a Republican-led fixation on the timeline of events, never takes into account that military leaders have said they were unable to respond any faster or with any more force than they did that night.
Lake highlighted concerns raised by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes (CA) who speculated in a letter to Speaker John Boehner that there was no lull in fighting in between attacks on the U.S. compound the night of September 11, 2012. The official timeline of events established that the attacks occurred in two waves, with an initial attack on the main facility and a second attack on an annex building more than four hours later. Lake entertained Nunes' theory, and wrote that the absence of a lull between those attacks could raise legitimate questions about the military's response:
If there was a lull in the fighting that night, as the [State Department's Accountability Review Board] report states, more air support or specialized counter-terrorism teams would likely not have made much of a difference. If the fighting continued throughout the night, however, or the witnesses allegedly say, the decision not to send more backup that evening would be a more serious blunder.
But the extent of a lull in fighting is entirely beside the point. Military experts have repeatedly testified that the response represented the best of our military's capabilities.
Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ordered the Marine Corps' Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST), stationed in Spain, to get to Libya "as fast as you can" as soon as the first attack began. Their ability to respond began at that point. Fred Bruton, a former diplomatic security agent, and Samuel M. Katz, a journalist, explained the logistical issues at play that are far more relevant than the lull Lake fixates on:
There was never a question concerning U.S. resolve or the overall capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to Benghazi. There was, however, nothing immediate about an immediate response. There were logistics and host-nation approvals to consider. An immediate response was hampered by the equation of geography and logistics.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has said that criticisms of the military's ability to respond quickly enough that night are based on a "cartoonish impression of the military," has also said that he "would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft" over Benghazi given safety concerns about "the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals." According to Gates, getting a force to Benghazi from outside the country "in a timely way would have been very difficult if not impossible."
Lake never explains how the absence of a lull in fighting would have changed the equation in any meaningful way.
There were special forces stationed in Tripoli, but the commander of Special Operations Command Africa ordered the troops to stay in Tripoli because they were needed to protect the embassy. Regardless of this decision, they would not have been able to get to Benghazi before the second attack concluded. An interview of a diplomatic official in Tripoli by congressional investigators established that the flight these special forces were scheduled to take, but did not, was to take off after 6:00 a.m., local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people.
Military experts including Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs retired Admiral Mike Mullen, all agree that the military did everything they possibly could that night.
In fact, even Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee have determined there's no evidence to suggest aid was withheld because of a quick first attack. From an April report (emphasis added):
The House Armed Services Committee also examined the question of whether the Defense Department failed to deploy assets to Benghazi because it believed the attack was over after the first phase. The progress report finds that officials at the Defense Department were monitoring the situation throughout and kept the forces that were initially deployed flowing into the region. No evidence has been provided to suggest these officials refused to deploy resources because they thought the situation had been sufficiently resolved.
For more on conservative media myths about the September 2012 attack, read The Benghazi Hoax, the new e-book by Media Matters' David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt.
On Wednesday, the State Department Office of the Inspector General (IG) issued the results of its investigation of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board that was chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, as well as the State Department's implementation of its recommendations. The first finding of the report states [emphasis added]:
The Accountability Review Board process operates as intended--independently and without bias--to identify vulnerabilities in the Department of State's security programs.
After being given advance copies of a Republican report attacking the credibility of the Benghazi review that was released on September 16, publications rushed to inform their readers of its flawed findings. There is no similar urgency on the part of the media to cover this new report which should lay to rest the notion that the Accountability Review Board was anything but an independent investigation into the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is looking to crank up the Benghazi scandal machine again. With hearings to explore Benghazi's "unanswered questions" scheduled for September 19, the Republicans on the committee published this morning a report on the "deficiencies" in the independent inquiry conducted by the State Department's Accountability Review Board. Issa and his colleagues clearly want to create buzz among the partisan and DC media (before its public release the report was leaked to Fox News, the Washington Post, and the Daily Beast), and they know that one proven tactic for piquing reporters' interest is to take a shot at Hillary Clinton, which this report does. Feebly.
The previous House Republican report on Benghazi made a big splash with its claim that a cable bearing the former Secretary of State's signature indicated that she had personally denied requests for increased security in Benghazi -- an absurd allegation given that all such messages from the State Department to overseas diplomatic facilities bear the secretary's "signature." The new report's attempt at snaring Clinton is less dramatic: "E-mails reviewed by the Committee," the report states on page 65, "show it is likely that Secretary Clinton's views played some role in the decision making on the future of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi."
The report's Clinton inclusion is already having the intended effect. Fox News noted that the report says "it is likely, based on email evidence, that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's views played a role in the decision-making." CNN wrote that the "report is the closest congressional investigators have come to tying Clinton to aspects of planning for the Benghazi mission before the attack."
But how close is it? The committee's Republicans aren't alleging that Clinton had a role in the decision making process; they suspect her views, as interpreted by subordinates, came into play. And not her views on the security situation in Benghazi, but on the issue of whether to keep the Benghazi outpost operational a year before the attack took place. And they're not 100-percent sure -- it is "likely" that this happened. That language is so carefully hedged that one suspects Issa wanted to avoid a repeat of the "signed cable" fiasco.
Prison can be a magical place for transgender people, especially once you get over the whole "rape" thing. That's according to an op-ed in The Daily Beast which suggests that Chelsea Manning - formerly known as Bradley Manning - might be treated like "royalty" as a transgender inmate in an all-male prison. The op-ed has already drawn criticism, prompting an editor's note in which The Daily Beast acknowledged the existence of prison rape but continued to ignore the horrific conditions experienced by transgender inmates in particular.
On August 22, The Daily Beast published an op-ed by columnist Mansfield Frazier titled, "How Will Chelsea Manning Be Treated In Prison?" The op-ed sought to downplay concerns that Bradley Manning - who recently announced her desire to be identified as a female named Chelsea - might be subject to violence and abuse once she begins her prison sentence for leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks.
According to Frazier - who bases his claims on his own experience in prison - the astronomical rates of rape and sexual assault against transgender prison inmates are overblown and exaggerated. In fact, in the original version of the piece, Frazier suggested most inmates who claim to be raped secretly want it:
[L]ife in prison is more complex than many statistics suggest. When I was in the joint, rape wasn't just something you could let happen to you.
Indeed, the vast majority of experienced convicts know that "true" rape is not a common occurrence in prison. That doesn't mean that homosexual sex doesn't occur--it certainly does. But it's really not that unusual for a new prisoner to show up on the compound and begin walking around the yard in pants far too tight. Before long they drop the soap in the shower, get a little close to another naked man, and then-- simply because they've never been able to come to terms with their own sexuality--tell anyone who will listen (but, interestingly enough, they usually never complain to the guards) that they were "raped." And a week or two later it could happen again, and then again.
To further prove his point, Frazier states - without citing a shred of evidence - that the desire to have gay sex and claim it was rape is why many prisoners choose to go back to prison once they've been released:
Quiet as it's kept, this is one reason for high recidivism rates. In prison, closeted homosexuals can receive what they desire but are able to maintain to the world they really find such behavior disgusting; in this manner they don't have to take responsibility for what happened to them.
Daily Beast contributor Niall Ferguson has offered an "unqualified apology" for suggesting that John Maynard Keynes, the British economist whose theories are the basis of macroeconomics and the foundation of progressive economic policy, was unconcerned with future generations because he was gay and childless.
Ferguson, a Harvard history professor who has issued flawed denunciations of President Obama's economic policies, made his original comments during a May 2 speech. According to a May 3report by Financial Advisor magazine (emphasis added):
Speaking at the Tenth Annual Altegris Conference in Carlsbad, Calif., in front of a group of more than 500 financial advisors and investors, Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes' famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead.Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of "poetry" rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive.
It gets worse.
Ferguson, who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, and author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, says it's only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an "effete" member of society. Apparently, in Ferguson's world, if you are gay or childless, you cannot care about future generations nor society.
Ferguson quickly came under fire following the publication of the Financial Advisor piece. On May 4, he acknowledged on his website that his comments were "as stupid as they were insensitive." He wrote:
But I should not have suggested - in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation - that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes's wife Lydia miscarried.
Ferguson further stated that he "detest[s] all prejudice, sexual or otherwise," but that his colleagues, students, and friends "have every right to be disappointed in me, as I am in myself." He concluded: "To them, and to everyone who heard my remarks at the conference or has read them since, I deeply and unreservedly apologize."
This is not the first time Ferguson has been the subject of scrutiny following an offensive comment. He was harshly criticized for a 2009 column in which he compared Obama to the cartoon character Felix the Cat, writing that Obama was "not only black" but "also very, very lucky." More recently he claimed that New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman's supposed "inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma."
In a National Review Online post, author Charlotte Allen followed the lead of other right-wing media figures by suggesting that the deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut were the result of a "feminized setting" in which "helpless passivity is the norm."
Similarly, Newsweek and Daily Beast special correspondent Megan McArdle wrote that people, even children, should be trained to "gang rush" active shooters, in contradiction to expert opinion on how best to handle such situations.
And Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent wrote that the allegedly "embarrassing, politically correct culture" of the U.S. that "mocks traditional societal values" helped lead to the shooting. Nugent also told Newsmax that "political correctness and the sheep like behavior that goes with it" could be cured by arming teachers.
Daily Beast correspondent Megan McArdle attacked the concept of an assault weapons ban by falsely suggesting that there are no functional differences between such weapons and other firearms.
In her November 21 article, McArdle wrote that the differences between assault weapons and other firearms are "largely cosmetic rather than functional," a claim also pushed by the National Rifle Association. In fact, assault weapons, like the military weapons on which they are based, have functional differences from other guns that increase their lethality.
McArdle's assessment was based on an image that purports to show two nearly identical weapons with only one being regulated under an assault weapons ban.
The image was created by a blogger who used it to argue in favor of the ban, writing that "If you can buy the gun on the top, but can't buy the bottom gun, who cares? You still have a gun." McArdle responded that "if it makes no difference, than why have the law?" and argued that "'assault weapon' is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description."
In fact, the lower pictured weapon, a Mossberg 500 Tactical Persuader, has a number of features that increase its lethality compared to the top pictured shotgun. Contrary to what the graphic suggests, the only difference between the two weapons is not just the pistol grip featured on the Tactical Persuader. The Tactical Persuader also has an adjustable stock that can be removed from the firearm completely, which allows the gun length to be shortened for increased concealability. Furthermore, when combined with a pistol grip, the firearm can be more easily maneuvered, allowing the shooter to fire from the hip and more easily use the weapon from vehicles and in other close quarters situations.
President Obama's policy to ensure that women have access to insurance coverage for birth control has garnered support from Catholic hospitals, Catholic universities, Catholic Charities USA, other religious leaders, and Catholic voters. Ignoring this widespread support, right-wing media have claimed that Obama is engaged in a "war on religion" because of this policy.
Now a right-wing media figure has finally admitted that Catholics don't think that Obama is at war with them. In a Daily Beast op-ed, National Review Online blogger and Judicial Crisis Network chief counsel Carrie Severino wrote: "Many Catholics, despite the overwhelming evidence, have convinced themselves that President Obama is good for them and for people of faith."
Sadly, rather than using this evidence to rethink her premise that Obama is bad for Catholics, Severino posited that it must be the majority of Catholics who have it wrong. Indeed -- in what we can only hope is an extremely poorly thought out attempt at humor -- Severino compared Catholics who support Obama to the victims of abusive relationships.
In her op-ed, headlined "Catholics, Get Real: President Obama Is Abusing You," Severino wrote:
Let's hope Americans who still care about freedom of religion -- particularly Catholics, who have experienced the brunt of Obama's abuse -- wise up soon and seek help. After all, as the Mayo Clinic reminds us, "It can be hard to recognize or admit that you're in an abusive relationship -- but help is available. Remember, no one deserves to be abused."
The National Rifle Association has long pushed the suggestion that their electoral efforts were responsible for both George W. Bush's victory in 2000 and Republicans winning control of Congress in 1994. As evidenced by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, it's a key talking point cited as evidence that the NRA will be able to defeat President Obama in this year's presidential election as well as a cautionary tale for progressives not to push for gun violence prevention legislation.
Recently the narrative of the NRA's massive electoral power has extended beyond the usual gun lobby sounding boards. A recent article by UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler in The Daily Beast that argued that the NRA's electoral strength would doom Obama should he propose even modest proposals and suggested the 1994 midterms elections were evidence that talking about gun violence prevention "will hurt Democrats all the way down the ballot."
A December Bloomberg News report chronicling the NRA's massive fundraising apparatus similarly noted the belief that the NRA hurt Al Gore in 2000. The narrative was also reflected in a report by Reuters that reported that passing gun violence prevention measures, such as the 1994 assault weapons ban, leads to "sharp backlashes" from voters.
However, a detailed new analysis suggests that the NRA's past electoral impact is massively overblown.
The most recent installment of a Think Progress series examining the electoral strength of the NRA by American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman (who previously worked for Media Matters) debunks the long running narrative that the NRA had a huge impact on the 1994 and 2000 elections, calling this a "mistaken reading of history." According to Waldman, "what the NRA claims credit for usually turns out upon closer examination to be nothing more than elections in which Republicans do well," while when Democrats win, as they did in 2006 and 2008, "the NRA is quiet."