Tag: lisa murkowski
Nearly Every GOP Senator Votes Against Right To Contraception Act

Nearly Every GOP Senator Votes Against Right To Contraception Act

Sure, the Republican Party wants to convince voters they really aren’t that radical when it comes to reproductive rights. But voting against a bill to protect access to birth control isn’t the way to do it.

On Wednesday, almost every Senate Republican voted to block the Right to Contraception Act—legislation that should be uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Only two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted to let the bill move forward.

“The right to contraception is a fundamental right, central to a person’s privacy, health, wellbeing, dignity, liberty, equality, and ability to participate in the social and economic life of the Nation,” the bill states. So yes, you can see why Republicans—who don’t value any of those things—took issue with it.

Of course, that’s not the justification they’re giving.

“This is a show vote. It’s not serious,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said. “It’s a phony vote because contraception, to my knowledge, is not illegal. It’s not unavailable.”

Sure, it’s not illegal or unavailable now. But that’s hardly the point.

The point is that there are plenty of Republicans who’ve said it should be illegal or at least unavailable or at least highly restricted.

One of those Republicans is Donald Trump. Perhaps Cornyn’s heard of him? Just last month, Trump said that contraception, like abortion, should probably be decided by the states. He also promised a “very comprehensive” plan he’s yet to deliver.

Another one of those Republicans Cornyn might know? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has not been quite as explicit as Trump. But pretty close. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health—the case that overturned Roe v. Wade—he wrote that the court should next overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, the case that recognized a right to birth control.

And it’s because of those threats to birth control that Senate Democrats want to act now to protect the right to contraception before it’s too late.

"Today, we live in a country where not only tens of millions of women have been robbed of their reproductive freedoms. We also live in a country where tens of millions more worry about something as basic as birth control," Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday. "That's utterly medieval."

It’s not just utterly medieval; it’s also a threat. First, abortion and next up: birth control.

"If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a recent “60 Minutes” interview. That’s the lesson Democrats have had to learn the hard way.

The lesson Republicans are now learning the hard way is that fighting to get rid of a freedom the majority of Americans supports is really unpopular. Really super very unpopular. Which is why they’ve been scrambling to find a way to talk about it without sounding like the radical extremist freaks they are.

And it’s why Senate Republicans are now pretending they don’t have a problem with contraception—they just don’t like the bill to protect it.

“We will have an alternative that will make very clear that Republicans are for contraception,” GOP Whip John Thune said. Yeah, sure they will. And what will make their bill better?

According to Iowa’s Joni Ernst, who’s supposedly working on her own bill, it will be better because it will cover less contraception. No, that’s not a joke.

“It does not include Plan B, which many folks on the right would consider abortive services,” she said. The fact that “many folks” consider emergency contraception “abortive services” does not make it so. And that’s according to actual doctors, not radical right-wing activists.

But it’s those radical right-wing activists Republican senators can’t resist, even as they’re trying to convince voters they really aren’t that radical. So they’ve blocked a bill to protect contraception, with only the empty and vague promise to voters that there’s no need to worry, it’s perfectly safe. For now.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Is There Any Way To Isolate Political Extremists? Yes

Is There Any Way To Isolate Political Extremists? Yes

There is probably no easy cure for the Marjorie Taylor Greene phenomenon. She's a repellent clown whose presence on the national stage has yielded nothing but degradation — except for the guffaw she afforded us when denouncing Nancy Pelosi's "Gazpacho police."

And she has lots of company. Her colleagues in the House include Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and Louie Gohmert and, sigh, many more. And even among the members who probably do know the difference between the Nazi secret police and a summer soup, there are alarming numbers who are extremist-adjacent. There are, for example, more sitting GOP congressmen who voted not to certify the 2020 election than there are Republicans who voted for a resolution to support NATO.

Democrats are not immune to the extremism virus either. While the Democratic Party hasn't lost its bearings in the way the Republican Party has, it is skewed by its own zealots. In the 2020 presidential primaries, for example, progressive activists pushed candidates to impose a moratorium on deportations, to abolish private health insurance and to ban fracking, among other demands. Those issues weren't top of mind for average Democrats, let alone for average voters.

In the pre-Internet era, our political parties seemed to be bulwarks of stability. But that has long since ceased to be the case. Rather than forming, directing and discipling their members, these institutions have become hollow shells. Unable to control fundraising due to the rise of small-dollar, internet contributions, and stripped even of the formerly coveted power of attaching earmarks to legislation, the parties, as Yuval Levin has argued, are mere soapboxes that permit members to flaunt their personal brands.

The party duopoly empowers the most extreme voters and leaves the vast middle unrepresented and feeling that in general elections they must choose the lesser of two evils. As Katherine Gehl, founder of the Institute for Political Innovation, notes, about 10 percent of voters (those who vote in primaries) determine the outcome of 83 percent of congressional races. And because primary voters tend to be more ideological and extreme than others, candidates pander to them to get elected and then to remain in office. The term "primary" became a verb only in the last decade or so, as the power of the party zealots became a cudgel to use against any member who even considered compromising with the other party.

There's one more factor aggravating the lurch to extremism, at least among Republicans (Democrats have different rules), and that's the winner-take-all system in presidential primaries. In 2016, Donald Trump lost Iowa and then won New Hampshire with 35 percent of the vote. A solid majority, 57 percent, was divided among five other candidates.

So, are we doomed to be at the mercy of the mad and bad? It's possible, but then again, one reform that seems to be getting traction is ranked-choice voting (also known as instant runoff elections).

It's already the law in Alaska and Maine for state, congressional, and presidential contests and has been adopted by more than 20 cities. In Virginia, the Republican Party used a ranked-choice system to choose its gubernatorial candidate in 2021, with the result that Glenn Youngkin rather than Amanda Chase ("Trump in heels") secured the nomination. In New York City, predictions that the city's 5.6 million voters would find the ranked-choice system confusing were not borne out. Turnout was up compared with the last contested mayoral primary, and 95 percent of voters said the system was easy. There were no differences among ethnic groups in understanding the system, and the winner was a moderate former cop.

There are many different approaches to ranked-choice voting, and experimentation will determine which is best. But even with the small sample we have, we can judge that the incentives seem better. Among the three GOP senators who voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, only one is up for reelection in 2022 — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Murkowski could uphold the norm of confirming the other party's qualified nominee and not fear a Trumpist primary challenger because Alaska now holds an open primary in which anyone from any party can participate. The four candidates who win the most votes go on to the general election. Voters rank their choices. If one candidate gets over 50 percent, he or she is the winner. If not, the bottom polling candidate is dropped, and the second choices on ballots are distributed, and so on until someone has a majority.

Not only does the ranked-choice system disempower party extremists; it also discourages candidates from savage personal attacks, the persistence of which arguably keeps some fine people out of politics altogether.

The two-party system has not proven to be a solid foundation for democracy. Time to disarm the crazies.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the Beg to Differ podcast. Her most recent book is Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Senate Advances Bill To Raise Debt Limit And Avert Disastrous Default

Senate Advances Bill To Raise Debt Limit And Avert Disastrous Default

By Richard Cowan and David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Congress' months-long drive to raise the federal government's $28.9 trillion debt limit, and avert an unprecedented default, took a step forward on Thursday as the Senate advanced the first of two bills needed for the hike.

Fourteen Republicans joined the chamber's 48 Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them in voting to end debate on the first bill, spurning right-wing demands that they boycott any measure leading to an increase in the Treasury Department's borrowing authority.

"I'm optimistic that after today's vote we will be on a glide path to avoid a catastrophic default," the chamber's top Democrat, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, said in a speech before the 64-36 vote on a measure he negotiated with Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell to speed passage.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has urged Congress to raise the limit before December 15.

Republicans for months have been maneuvering to try to force Democrats to raise the debt limit on their own, seeking to link the move to President Joe Biden's proposed $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" domestic spending bill.

Democrats note that the legislation is needed to finance substantial debt incurred during Donald Trump's administration, when Republicans willingly jacked up Washington's credit card bill by about $7.85 trillion, partly through sweeping tax cuts and spending to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Senate could vote as early as Thursday evening to pass the first of two pieces of legislation needed to raise the borrowing limit to a still-under-negotiation amount intended to cover Washington's expenses through the 2022 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

Democrats will need only a simple majority, including Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote, to pass the two pieces of legislation and raise the debt limit.

A final vote, in the House of Representatives, is likely on Tuesday and President Joe Biden is expected to sign both bills into law once they pass.

'Right Thing To Do'

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is up for re-election next year, told reporters that she voted to advance the first bill because "It was the right thing to do."

She added that at a time when Russia is amassing troops on its border with Ukraine, "we don't need to be sending signals anywhere in the world that we're not going to back the full faith and credit in the United States."

The break in the legislative deadlock came just two months after Congress agreed on a short-term lift to the debt ceiling, to avert an unprecedented default by the federal government on its obligations, which would have dire implications for the world economy.

For years, lawmakers have squirmed over raising the statutory limit on the country's growing debt, fearing voter backlash.

The emergence in 2010 of the conservative, small-government "Tea Party" movement increased the rancor in Congress over such legislation, even as lawmakers voted for tax cuts and spending increases that contribute to the debt.

The Bipartisan Policy Center think thank warned last week that the government could risk default by late this month if Congress does not act.

Democrats noted that they had voted in the past to authorize debt ceiling hikes to cover Republican measures, such as the Trump tax cuts.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, David Morgan, Susan Cornwell and Moira Warburton; Editing by Scott Malone, Peter Cooney and Andrea Ricci)

Sarah Palin

Palin Tells Ultra-Right ‘Christian’ Group She May Run For Senate In 2022

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Back in March, the Associated Press' Mark Thiessen speculated on a number of potential primary challengers for Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2022. The biggest name on the list was perhaps the third most-famous living member of the Alaska GOP (after Murkowski and Rep. Don Young), former Governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Well, on Friday, People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch revealed that Palin is taking a very long and very hard look at the race—and is willing to run if God gives the okay and if Christians get behind her more than they did in 2008. More telling, though, is where she did it—a conference hosted by leading members of the overtly fascist religious right offshoot where Palin has spent a good chunk of her life. This same offshoot played a key role in what can only be described as a sustained campaign to bully this country into supporting Palin's male counterpart—The Messiah, Lord Donald Trump, The Most Merciful.

Two Sundays ago, Palin was a featured guest at "Leading With Conviction: Truth That Stands," a conference hosted by Che Ahn of Harvest International Ministry. Ahn is one of the top leaders in the New Apostolic Reformation, an overtly fascist offshoot of the religious right that believes it can actually bring about the Second Coming by taking over the world. Ahn is counted as an "apostle" in this constituency; NAR believers are of the mind that if Christians under submission to "apostles" and "prophets" like Ahn take over the forces that influence society, it will pave the way for Jesus to come back—and they can hand him the world on a platter. You may also know this network as the same outfit that produced Becky Fischer of "Jesus Camp" fame.

During the afternoon session, Palin sat down for an on-stage interview with Ahn. Watch it here.

This interview was vintage Palin—that is, red meat by the barrelful. She railed that this country was "dedicated to God"—indeed, "our charters of liberty were written to and about God." She openly wondered when Americans would wake up and ask why our leaders want to "strip from our Creator what our founders had dedicated to him" and repurpose it for "for some kind of secular use, secular enjoyment."

Later, Palin asked the audience, "Are we gonna let them fundamentally transform the nation that does belong to God? How dare we take from God what is his and say we're going to do what we want to do with it?"

Ahn was intrigued—enough that later on, he asked Palin if she would take a run at Murkowski's seat. Palin said she was praying about it, saying that "if God wants me to do it, I will." However, she said that if she did run, "you guys better be there for me this time." She believed that she got pummeled in the press in 2008 because her brothers and sisters didn't have her back. Later, she sounded the alarm about "potentially forced immunizations," and urged Christians to not be afraid to "infiltrate and influence the culture."

Palin was speaking in a code most of the audience at that conference recognized. Indeed, she was actually in her element. For those who don't know, Palin is a devout charismatic Christian, though she herself eschews the label, preferring to call herself just a Christian (as do many charismatics).

During the 2008 campaign, our friends at Talk2Action revealed that Palin has moved in NAR circles for much of her politically active life. For instance, Bruce Wilson reported Mary Glazier, the leader of an NAR-aligned group of Alaska-based intercessors, revealed that Palin had been part of her group since the 1990s—and that around that time, "God began to speak to her about entering into politics." When Palin joined John McCain's ticket, a number of NAR leaders skipped and danced. For instance, a Norwegian pastor noted that she was a longstanding member of Glazier's prayer group. Glazier, in turn, was under the covering of one of the NAR's founders, Peter Wagner.

Russ Bellant revealed that the church Palin attended in Juneau during much of her tenure as governor was up to its eyeballs in the "Toronto Blessing," which many of us know for scenes of people laughing, barking and howling during church services But that same movement also believes in turning the cities where they're based into "citadels for the righteous." One speaker brought the flock to its feet with a claim that they were in a movement that would "shake America like a tsunami." According to Bellant, Palin almost certainly believes wholeheartedly in this line—otherwise, she wouldn't have been "in good stead and be upheld" as she was in 2008.

This context is needed to understand how another NAR "apostle," Cindy Jacobs—a woman who once claimed birds fell dead with the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," and who called for Christians to "lay siege" to their cities—prayed over Palin at the end of the interview. Jacobs said that she'd gotten a message from God that "an army of intercessors" and "an army of pastors and leaders" would be all in for Palin if she ran for Senate, and it would be enough for her to go "all the way to the top" if she did run for Senate.

Palin's path, however, could be muddied by recent changes to elections in Alaska. Back in November, voters scrapped partisan primaries, instead instituting a blanket primary in which the top four finishers would advance to the general election. That general election, in turn, would be conducted via Australian-style ranked-choice voting. Speculation has abounded that such a system could actually protect Murkowski, especially if she makes it to the general election.

Whatever the case, if the Democrats are serious about running in this seat in 2022, the prospect of Palin being on the ballot is even more reason for them to be about it.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World