November, 02 2010, 12:25pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Drew Courtney or Josh Glasstetter,Phone: 202-467-4999,Email:,media@pfaw.org
What the 2010 Elections Say About America: Stories People For the American Way is Watching
Statement by Michael B. Keegan, President, People For the American Way
WASHINGTON
The
national elections being held this week bring together a number of historic
story lines and analysts will no doubt be sorting through the results for
weeks. It will take some time to assess the full impact of the virtual merger
between Fox News and the GOP, and weigh the success of efforts by Religious
Right leaders, GOP strategists, and big business to co-opt the Tea Party
movement. But before election night is over, we'll get answers to some of the
most important questions about where our country is headed.
Here's
PFAW's guide to races to watch and to what the outcomes mean for America.
Will
Scapegoating Latinos Backfire?
The
Republicans could win this battle but lose the war. Sharron Angle, arguably the
most high-profile of the Tea Party's Senate candidates, built her pre-election
strategy on flooding Nevada airwaves with toxic, divisive, racially tinged
television ads that feature menacing dark-skinned people threatening
vulnerable white children and families. The national GOP's embrace of Angle
will make it hard for them to distance themselves from her destructive,
scapegoating ads targeting the fastest-growing demographic group in American
society. The outcome of her campaign may depend on whether she was right in
guessing that her ads would win her more votes in this election than they would
cost her. Louisiana Senator David Vitter has also run what some consider the
most offensive anti-immigrant ads of the campaign season.
America's
Voice has identified another dozen or so candidates who have used
distortions and stereotypes regarding immigrants and Latinos. Among races to
watch where candidates have made outrageous statements on immigration:
- Sharron Angle - U.S. Senate candidate, Nevada, ran divisive
anti-immigrant ads, then claimed she didn't know if the scary people
sneaking through the border fence in the ad were Latinos. - David Vitter - U.S. Senator, Louisiana, also ran
offensive ads. - Meg Whitman - Gubernatorial candidate, California, who had
called her former housekeeper an "extended member of the
family," later urged that she be deported. - Joe Miller - U.S. Senate candidate, Alaska, looked to Iron
curtain for border control inspiration, saying, "If East Germany could do it, we could
do it." - Kris Kobach - Secretary of State candidate, Kansas, claimed the illegal voter registration by aliens has
become "pervasive," then later admitted he didn't know the
extent of the alleged problem. - Allen West - U.S. House candidate, Florida, mixed
anti-government and anti-immigrant rhetoric: "You must be
well-informed and well-armed, because this government we have right now is
a tyrannical government. And it starts with illegal immigration."
While
some GOP strategists and Religious Right leaders are worried about the
long-term impact of the Party alienating Latino voters, those concerns seem to
have been pushed aside in the hopes that demagoguery on the immigration issue
will win enough votes this year to help put the GOP in control of Congress. But
playing to the Tea Party base of the party, and its hostility to any
comprehensive approach to immigration reform, will put the GOP in a long-term
bind. Most Americans support reform that includes a path to citizenship for
people living, working, and raising their families here; GOP candidates
answering to right-wing ideologues denounce any such provisions as
"amnesty." Immigration is likely to be one of the issues on which the
newly expanded far-right congressional caucus will find governing more
complicated than campaigning.
Will
Voters Overlook Right-Wing Violence and Calls for Violence?
Tea Party
candidates and right-wing pundits have introduced a frightening amount of
violent rhetoric into this year's campaigns, suggesting that if right-wing
voters don't get their way they should consider resorting to violence or even
revolution against a "tyrannical" federal government. They have
portrayed the president and Democratic congressional leaders not only as
political opponents but as enemies of America bent on crushing individual
liberty and undermining the nation's interest. With that kind of example and
inflammatory rhetoric from right-wing leaders, it's hardly surprising that
members of Congress have faced death threats, or that violence and thuggish
behavior have broken out on the campaign trail:
Among the
races to watch:
- U.S. Senate, Kentucky:
Campaign supporters of Senate candidate Rand Paul's knocked a woman to the
cement, and another stomped on her shoulder and pressed her head to the
ground with his foot, landing her in the hospital with a concussion and
multiple sprains. Paul called the attack a "crowd control
problem." - U.S. Senate, Alaska:
Candidate Joe Miller's paramilitary security team manhandled, handcuffed, and illegally detained a journalist who
was trying to ask the candidate a question. - U.S. House, Florida 22nd Congressional District:
Republican Congressional candidate Allen West has used violent rhetoric in his campaign, used members of a biker gang for protection, and defended the harassment and bullying of a Democratic
staffer attempting to video a public event. - U.S. Senate, Nevada:
GOP candidate Sharron Angle famously suggested that if the elections don't go the way Tea
Party activists want, there may be need to resort to "Second
Amendment remedies."
All
indications point to widespread Republican gains on Election Day, which should
mitigate against inflammatory charges that President Obama and his Democratic
allies had somehow stolen the election. But if a number of close and heated
races are won by Democrats, don't be surprised by violent reactions among those
who have been amped up by Glenn Beck and other purveyors of paranoia.
Will Right-Wing
'Grassroots' Campaigns Mean Big Win for Government by Big Business?
With a
big push from a Supreme Court granting corporations the same right as citizens
to influence American elections, big business interests are pouring huge
amounts of their record-breaking profits and cash-on-hand into buying a
government that is even more willing to sacrifice the interests of individual
Americans to the demands from corporate America. A coalition of right-wing
groups coordinating with each other to lead the GOP-supporting effort dumped an
additional $50 million into ads in competitive House races in the final weeks
of the campaign. Unless and until a constitutional amendment addresses the
extraordinary damage created by Citizens United and other Supreme Court
decisions that have undermined campaign finance laws, we can count on corporate
America to invest whatever it takes to elect politicians pledged to implement policies
that sacrifice the health of American consumers and workers, and the well-being
of American communities, on the altar of ever-greater profits and wealth for
those who already have the most.
Among the
biggest investments by corporate interests dropped in competitive races are:
- U.S. Senate, Colorado
- Ken Buck v. Sen. Michael Bennet.
American Crossroads alone has spent more than $5 million attacking Bennet; reportedly this race featured a record3.9 million in
outside funding on just one day in October. - U.S. Senate, Illinois
- Mark Kirk v. Alexi Giannoulias.
Crossroads GPS poured more than4.4 million into this race to attack
Giannoulias. - U.S. Senate, Washington - Dino Rossi v. Sen. Patty Murray. On
October 21, Rossi reportedly passed Illinois' Mark Kirk to take the top
spot in secret money being spent on his behalf - more than 4.5 million at
that point. - U.S. Senate, California
- Carly Fiorina v. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent more than5 million to attack Sen. Boxer.
How Many Anti-Government Extremists
Will Take Seats in Congress?
Cheered on by right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck, Tea Party and GOP candidates
are portraying this election as a choice between "socialism" and
"constitutional conservativism." They are embracing a radically
right-wing view of the U.S. Constitution, one that ignores the Constitution's -
and the nation's - history, to promote a misguided nostalgia for a time when
huge numbers of elderly Americans lived in poverty and when the federal
government could not protect workers with safety regulations or minimum wage
requirements. Meanwhile, Beck and Religious Right figures are promoting the
idea that this radically restricted view of government is grounded in
Christianity and the Bible. In essence, they are trying to make the size and
scope of government the new culture war, and to convince Americans that relying
on government assistance in hard times is not only un-American but
un-Christian.
Many
Americans who end up voting for Tea Party-backed Republicans because they are
worried about the state of the economy or size of the deficit will be shocked
to find the kind of gridlock that will be caused if and when candidates get
elected to office who have pledged not to support anything they don't find in
their 19th Century view of the Constitution.
A few of
the many races to watch:
- Mike Lee, U.S. Senate Candidate from Utah:
Lee, virtually guaranteed a win in this heavily Republican state, will
bring to the Senate a remarkably reactionary view of the Constitution and
the U.S.
government's role in society. He has denounced as "domestic enemies" those who
disagree with his radically limited view of the (divinely inspired)
Constitution. He would abolish the federal departments of Energy and
Education, dismantle the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and phase out Social Security. He says earmarks are
unconstitutional. Lee could be one of a number of new senators who take
the GOP's already unprecedented campaign of partisan obstruction to a
damaging new level. - Joe Miller, U.S. Senate candidate from Alaska: Miller says the
Department of Education should be eliminated because it's not in the
Constitution. Also violating the Constitution, in Millers mind, was health care reform
and legislation to extend jobless benefits to out-of-work Americans. He says he
would phase out social security and Medicare. - Ken Buck, U.S. Senate candidate from Colorado: Buck calls
for the elimination of the federal Department of Energy and Department of
Education, the privatization of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the elimination of student loans. He says he "doesnt
know" whether Social Security is constitutional, but calls it a "horrible policy" and says the
federal government should not be running health care or retirement
programs. - Marco Rubio, U.S. Senate candidate from Florida:
Rubio calls "statism" the "fastest-growing
religion in America." - Rand Paul, U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky: Paul has suggested that Congress should not be making mine
safety rules. He says Medicare is socialized medicine. He wants to eliminate the Departments of Education and Agriculture,
do away with the Federal Reserve, and abolish the Americans with
Disabilities Act. - David Hamer, U.S. House candidate from California's 11th
Congressional District: Hamer, who calls public schools
"socialism in education," wants to abolish public schools entirely and return education
to "the way things worked through the first century of American
nationhood," when an awful lot of people had no access to educational
opportunities.
Will Voter
Suppression and False Charges of Voter Fraud Help GOP Candidates Win?
Right-wing
strategists have a multi-faceted strategy on voting issues. One tactic is to
depress possible turnout among groups more likely to support Democratic and
progressive candidates, particularly people of color, with disinformation and
intimidation. News outlets have reported on a variety of voter suppression
efforts aimed at lowering turnout among African Americans, including Pennsylvania
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett telling the Delaware County GOP to keep the Philadelphia
Democratic vote below 50 percent; billboards in Milwaukee showing people behind
bars warning against "voter fraud," and the planned deployment by Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk of
"voter integrity squads" in Black neighborhoods in. In Wisconsin, the
Republican Attorney General reportedly colluded with
the state GOP, local Tea Party, and Americans for Prosperity in a voter
"caging" operation designed to purge people from voting rolls. In
Harris County, Texas, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has asked the DOJ to investigate
voter intimidation efforts during early voting
Watch for
stories on and after Election Day involving registered voters who are turned
away because they had been purged from voter lists, stories of intimidation by
"voter integrity" operations. Meanwhile, while there is no credible
evidence that voter fraud - the way right-wing strategists use the term,
meaning individuals casting ballots they aren't eligible to cast - has played
any significant role in any recent election, GOP strategists and right-wing
pundits have made it an article of faith among many Tea Party and right-wing
activists that ACORN somehow stole the 2008 election for President Obama and
that Democrats and people of color are conspiring once again to try to steal
elections. Sharron Angle and right-wing groups have already suggested that
Democrats are making plans to steal the close election. The extent of voter
suppression activities, and the extent to which right-wing pundits and
politicians make irresponsible charges of voter fraud, could tell us a lot
about the extent to which inflammatory and racially divisive politics will
continue to drive right-wing political strategy.
Among the
races to watch:
- U.S. Senate race in Illinois,
where GOP candidate Kirk has said he will deploy the largest "voter
integrity" program in almost two decades - Gubernatorial race in Texas,
where Democratic officials have asked the DOJ to investigate reports of
voter intimidation - Numerous races in Wisconsin,
including the U.S. Senate race, where GOP officials have engaged in
"voter caging" to purge voting lists
People For the American Way works to build a democratic society that implements the ideals of freedom, equality, opportunity and justice for all. We encourage civic participation, defend fundamental rights, and fight to dismantle systemic barriers to equitable opportunity. We fight against right-wing extremism and the injustice it fosters.
1 (800) 326-7329LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular