Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 282)
Al Gore returns with new climate campaign

Climate Reality Project aims to expose reality of global warming crisis and kicks off with a 24-hour live streamed event It should almost be called Inconvenient Truth 2.0. Five years after Al Gore launched his original documentary project, the former vice-president returned on Tuesday with a new campaign aimed at exposing the full scale of the climate crisis. Gore’s Climate Reality project announced it would kick off with a 24-hour live streamed event on 14 September. The day’s events will include a new multimedia presentation by Gore that will “connect the dots” between extreme weather events and climate change, a statement said. The campaign represents a modest comeback for Gore who has reduced his public profile on climate action in the past few years – probably out of consideration for the political consequences to his fellow Democrat Barack Obama. It is being launched four years after Inconvenient Truth, based on Gore’s climate change slide-show, won an Oscar for best documentary . The project made Gore the most visible advocate for action on climate change in the US – but it also made him an even greater target for the oil and coal lobby and Republicans. Republicans attacked Gore’s calls for climate action as a symbol of government excess. In recent years, the new conservative majority in the house of representatives has gone even further, casting almost any sort of environmental issue – including even a move to energy-saving bulbs – as an assault on personal freedom. But Gore came back into the spotlight last month in an essay in Rolling Stone in which he also accused Obama of failing to fight hard enough for climate action. Tuesday’s announcement, which echoed some of the themes in Gore’s Rolling Stone piece, suggests the former vice-president thinks the time has come for a broader fightback. “As the impacts of climate change are growing more prevalent, so is the resistance to finding the truth and implementing solutions. Just like the tobacco companies that spent decades in denial that smoking causes cancer, oil and coal companies are determined to sow denial and confusion about the science of climate change, ignore its impacts, and create apathy among our leaders,” the release said. “This event is the first step in a larger, multifaceted campaign to tell the truth about the climate crisis and reject the misinformation we hear every day.” Gore gave further details of the project in an interview with the climate blogger Joe Romm, saying the event would feature a new 30-minute slideshow with video on extreme weather events. Gore will host the event from New York City, but new content will be added to the slide show for the 24 locations used in each time zone. “Each site where a presentation originates will have basically the same 30-minute slide show, but with slides used in each time zone that illustrate particular impacts and particular efforts towards solutions at the venue representing than that time zone. And then the second 30 minutes of each hour will include a panel discussion focused on the climate crisis and the solutions to it from the perspective of leaders and scientists and others in that particular location. So it will be a 24-hour event,” he told Romm. Climate change Al Gore Activism Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Julian Assange’s lawyer tells extradition appeal arrest warrant is invalid

WikiLeaks founder’s counsel claims in high court that Swedish judges were misled about sexual assault and rape allegations The European arrest warrant issued for the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is invalid, the high court was told on Tuesday, because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of two women he allegedly had sex with. The warrant details four allegations of unlawful coercion, sexual molestation and rape, relating to encounters between Assange and two Swedish women while on a trip to Stockholm last August. But Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, said the warrant was a misinterpretation of the evidence and it was “surprising and disturbing” that Swedish district judges who requested Assange’s extradition had been misled. Emmerson was opening the latest step in the Australian’s attempt to avoid being sent to Sweden for questioning and possible charges which Assange has said he fears could pave the way for him to be further extradited to the US. There he could face charges relating to the leak of hundreds of thousands of classified government documents through WikiLeaks. An earlier appeal failed and Assange has appointed a new legal team which is taking a more conciliatory approach. Emmerson told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely that there was no evidence about there being a lack of consent in the encounters as appeared to be suggested in the wording of the arrest warrant. He said three of the allegations would not amount to criminal offences under English law. Emmerson said: “The senior district judge found that those factual allegations would establish dual criminality on the basis that lack of consent, and lack of reasonable belief in consent, may properly be inferred from the conduct described, particularly the references to ‘violence’ and a ‘design’ to ‘violate sexual integrity’. However, that description of conduct is not accurate. The arrest warrant misstates the conduct and is, by that reason alone, an invalid warrant.” Emmerson examined the witness testimonies of the encounters in graphic detail. Referring to evidence of an encounter on the night of 13 August given by a woman known as AA who was hosting Assange at her apartment, Emmerson said: “The appellant’s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was ‘rough and impatient’… they lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … AA tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.” But, Emmerson said, crucially there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because “after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found.” Emmerson told the court the case did not hinge on whether Assange accepted this version of events and others relating to other incidents because there were no charges against him, but whether the arrest warrant in connection with them was valid on “strict and narrow” legal grounds. As if to illustrate the change of strategy by Assange’s new legal team, Emmerson said: “Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.” Assange was in court with supporters including Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club who is hosting his house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, and John Pilger, the veteran investigative journalist. Assange arrived at about 9.15am, saying nothing to questions as he moved at a snail’s pace through a tight scrum of photographers. He was asked if he was looking forward to his latest day in court and whether he would take the case to the supreme court if he lost over the next two days. He said nothing. By the court railings, small groups of protesters gathered, including one carrying a banner saying: “Free Assange! Free Manning! End the wars.” Julian Assange WikiLeaks Rape Sweden Europe Robert Booth guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US firm 3M plans to summon Liam Fox to give evidence in blackmail case

Subpoena from 3M would force defence secretary Liam Fox to answer claim under oath in US court Liam Fox, the defence secretary, may be forced to give evidence in a blackmail trial in the United States, the Guardian has learnt. The “unprecedented” legal action could make Fox the first serving British cabinet minister to give evidence in a serious legal case in America. The Guardian understands that US conglomerate 3M is preparing to serve Fox with a subpoena demanding that he gives evidence over a claim that he was aware of a threat to interfere with the award of a knighthood to 3M’s British-born chief executive. It has been alleged that a private equity partner of the Ministry of Defence demanded that 3M hand over $30m (£18.5m) or risk the embarrassment of the government interfering with the knighthood award to George Buckley, 3M’s chief executive. It has been alleged that Fox was party to a conversation about the alleged suggestion. A 3M subpoena would force Fox to answer the claim under oath. An email to the private equity company from 3M’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, said: “We request that you accept subpoenas on [Fox's] behalf for the production of documents and deposition upon oral testimony.” 3M’s lawyers have yet to serve a subpoena on Fox. Harvey Boulter, chief executive of Porton Capital, which worked with the government to develop innovative technology to help combat MRSA, has been accused of blackmail and served with legal papers. Boulter and Porton Capital deny the claim. According to 3M’s lawyers, Boulter told them that if an earlier legal battle over the MRSA technology was not settled out of court he would use his political influence to interfere with Buckley’s recently awarded knighthood. The blackmail case is built on emails Boulter sent to 3M’s lawyers last month. “As a result of my meeting [with Fox] you ought to understand that David Cameron’s cabinet might very shortly be discussing the rather embarrassing situation of George [Buckley]‘s knighthood. It was discussed today,” Boulter said in one of the emails. “Governments are big and sometimes decisions in one part are not well co-ordinated.” Bill Brewer, 3M’s lawyer, said: “We are committed to determine who aided, abetted or participated with Boulter in any manner relative to the demands that were made to 3M during the weekend of 18 June.” The MoD has denied that Fox discussed the continuing legal case or Buckley’s knighthood. However, in a new statement, Boulter has again claimed that he and Fox discussed the litigation. The MoD declined to issue a fresh statement. Mark Stephens, a high-profile media lawyer with London firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said: “Calling a serving British cabinet ministers to give evidence is pretty unprecedented.” Stephens said that if the subpoena is served Fox would be pushed to give evidence in America or speak to US lawyers in a British court. Private equity Liam Fox United States Defence policy Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Undercover video exposes Bachmann anti-gay therapy

Click here to view this media ABC News presented undercover video Monday that confirms the clinic owned by Michele Bachmann and her husband Dr. Marcus Bachmann does indeed try to “pray away the gay.” The Nation reported last week that Andrew Ramirez’s mother took him to the clinic in 2004 at the age of 17 because he said he was gay. “[One counselor's] path for my therapy would be to read the Bible, pray to God that I would no longer be gay,” Ramirez said. “And God would forgive me if I were straight.” Undercover video from the pro-gay group Truth Wins Out provided further evidence that the Bachmann clinic practices gay-to-straight therapy. John Becker, who visited the clinic with two hidden cameras, was told that he could be completely free of his homosexual urges. “You’re in the midst of a storm, in the midst of a battle,” a therapist explained. “I think it’s possible to be totally free of them.” “The truth is God, God as designed our eyes to be attracted to the woman’s, to the woman’s body, to be attracted to, you know, everything. You know, to be attracted to her breasts,” he added. “He seemed to believe genuinely in his heart of hearts that, somehow, my homosexuality could be cured and could be eliminated,” Becker told ABC News. The American Psychological Association has said that there is no evidence that therapy can change sexual orientation.

Continue reading …
Israel’s ban on boycotts faces legal challenge from civil rights groups

Wave of condemnation for new law forbidding citizens from promoting academic, consumer or cultural boycotts Israeli civil rights groups have launched legal challenges to a new law that in effect bans citizens from calling for boycotts of Israeli goods, services, businesses or cultural or academic institutions. The passing of the law late on Monday night prompted a wave of criticism and condemnation in the Israeli press, with one eminent law professor describing it as “the blackest day in Knesset [Israeli parliament] history”. Gush Shalom, an organisation that campaigns for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, filed a petition to the supreme court, saying the new law was an attempt “to silence criticism against the government’s policies in general and its policies in the occupied territories in particular, and prevent an open and productive political discourse, which is the backbone of a democratic regime”. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel filed a petition to the high court of justice, saying the new law was “unconstitutional and undemocratic” and set a precedent for limiting freedom of expression. A coalition of four rights groups – Adalah, a legal rights organisation for Israeli-Arabs, Physicians for Human Rights, the Public Committee Against Torture and the Coalition of Women for Peace – also pledged to launch a high court challenge. The new law “gives protection to the illegal West Bank settlements in Israeli law by penalising their opponents”, the coalition said. In defiance of the law, Peace Now launched a new campaign calling for the boycott of wine and olive oil produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Under the terms of the law, passed by 47 votes to 38, an individual or organisation proposing a boycott may be sued for compensation by any individual or institution facing possible damage as a result. Evidence of actual damage will not be required. It bans consumer boycotts of goods and services produced in West Bank settlements and the blacklisting of cultural and academic institutions in settlements. It also bars the government from doing business with companies that comply with boycotts. Israel’s finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, defended the law on Israeli Army Radio: “Boycotts against the state of Israel certainly cannot be considered legitimate from Israel’s point of view and boycotts against the settlements or any other region of the country are not a democratic way to determine democratic oversight.” Israel has occupied the West Bank for 44 years but its settlements there are illegal under international law. The absence of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, from the vote on the new law came under fire. Sima Kadamon in Yedioth Ahranoth questioned why Netanyahu, who was reportedly at home on Monday evening, missed the vote. “Could it be that [he] realises that this is one of the most anti-democratic and individual right-denying laws ever passed … and that he was simply ashamed to be present?” Ehud Barak, the defence minister, also was absent from the vote although the bill, sponsored by Ze’ev Elkin, the chairman of the governing coalition, was endorsed in advance by the cabinet. Ben Caspit, a commentator for the Maariv newspaper, said: “This is a blatant and a resounding shutting of people’s mouths. This is thought police. There is no choice but to use this word. Fascism at its worst is raging.” In the same paper, law professor Amnon Rubenstein said: “This law will serve as a weapon in the hands of those people who claim that Israel is not a democracy and does not respect human rights. It will also increase Israel’s isolation in the academic world and among western liberal democracies. Paradoxically, this law increases the danger of anti-Israel boycotts … It seems to me that yesterday will be remembered for years to come as the blackest day in Knesset history.” Israel Palestinian territories Middle East Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Johann Hari suspended from the Independent over plagiarism claims

Interviewer and columnist has been suspended for two months pending outcome of internal investigation Johann Hari, the Independent interviewer and columnist accused of plagiarism , has been suspended. Hari was suspended on Tuesday for two months pending the outcome of an internal investigation by former Independent editor Andreas Whittam-Smith. He seemed to have survived the initial plagiarism allegations last month, but is now facing separate claims of “sock puppetry” – that he used an online comment alias to hit back at fellow journalists who had criticised his work. It is understood both allegations will be considered by Whittam-Smith. Chris Blackhurst, who replaced Simon Kelner as editor of the Independent earlier this month , said: “Johann Hari has been suspended for two months pending the outcome of an internal enquiry. We have no further comment to make.” More details soon… • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook The Independent Independent News & Media Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Jason Deans guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Government backs Labour call for Murdoch to ditch BSkyB bid

MPs from all parties likely to support motion calling on News Corporation to withdraw bid in wake of phone-hacking scandal The government will support Labour’s motion asking MPs to call on Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp to withdraw its BSkyB bid in a Commons debate on Wednesday. MPs from all sides seem likely to back the motion, which reads: “The house believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.” The vote would constitute an expression of Commons opinion and not be binding on a private company. However, Ed Miliband said it was necessary sometimes for parliament to speak on behalf of public opinion. Government sources said the Competition Commission review would continue for now and News Corp declined to comment. Shortly after the wording of the motion emerged the prime minister’s spokesman said: “We are intending to support it.” Asked whether the government believed that News Corp should heed the will of parliament, the spokesman replied: “Ultimately, that is a decision for News Corp but we would always expect people to take seriously what parliament has said.” News Corp withdrew on Monday an offer to spin off Sky News, triggering a referral of its bid to the Competition Commission. The commission’s inquiry will take a minimum of six months and then be referrred to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Many Liberal Democrat MPs will also support the motion, regarded as in order by the parliamentary clerks It also emerged that Miliband would meet David Cameron and Nick Clegg on Tuesday night to discuss the terms of reference of two government inquiries – one judicially led – into the multiplying scandals. Miliband is trying to ensure that the judicially-led inquiry in which witnesses will give evidence under oath, is broadly drawn, looking at relations between police and newspapers across Britain, as well as phone hacking and other illegal activities in all newspapers, not just the now closed News of the World. Miliband is also calling for the judicial inquiry to look more broadly at relations between the media and politicians. At his Friday press conference, David Cameron suggested the planned terms of reference meant that the non-judicial inquiry would look into issues of press culture and regulation, as well as media relations with politicians. Miliband said: “There are times when the House of Commons has got to rise to the occasion and speak for the public. “We have said the purchase of BSkyB should not proceed until after the criminal inquiries are complete. The simplest way to achieve this is for the Rupert Murdoch to recognise the feelings of the public and the will of the House of Commons and withdraw this bid. I am calling on parliament to show its will tomorrow.” One reason for the motion is that it would allow the bid to be deferred at least until the criminal investigation into phone hacking at News International has been completed, and even until the judicial inquiry has reported – which might take two years. Hunt has no power to defer a Competition Commission inquiry that will take between six and nine months. He can then take as long as he wishes to decide whether to accept the findings of the commission inquiry. If the motion is passed on Wednesday, the Murdoch group of companies will have to decide whether they want to defy parliament and press ahead with the bid. A long deferral of the bid would have damaging commercial consequences for the company because the full takeover of BSkyB is seen as important to create synergies across its worldwide satellite investments. Miliband added that a clear vote would be seen as a way of telling Hunt that the Commons regards a Murdoch takeover of BSkyB as not in the public interest, at the least until the extent of the criminality has been discovered. Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Ed Miliband David Cameron Jeremy Hunt News International News Corporation Media business BSkyB Television industry Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
CNN’s Cooper, Borger Rhapsodize On ‘Adult’ Obama Who ‘Did Not Raise Taxes’

CNN's Anderson Cooper and Gloria Borger took turns casting President Barack Obama as the centrist 'adult' in a room teeming with unruly Republican children who would rather invite economic calamity than compromise on a debt-reduction plan. Discussing a topic that would have made a perfect “Keeping Them Honest” segment, Cooper insisted, incorrectly, on Monday's “AC 360″ that the Democratic president has never raised taxes since taking office in 2009: “Now, in fact the stimulus was about one-third tax cuts. So in fairness, he did not raise taxes. He and Congress later passing a payroll tax holiday that is in effect right now. A year later he and Congress did approve tax breaks to help employers hire more people.” According to Politifact, Cooper is way off base in claiming the president “did not raise taxes.” In February, the fact-checking website gave Obama's claim that “I didn't raise taxes once” a “false” rating. Citing tax hikes on cigarettes, indoor tanning, and Medicare for families that make more than $250,000 per year, Politifact asserted, “The idea that Obama did not raise taxes is just plain wrong.” Cooper had the opportunity to fact check Obama himself in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment that aired only moments earlier, but the CNN anchor decided instead to focus on a pledge signed by Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. After Cooper implied Obama is a moderate, Borger attempted to erase any doubt: “The president was offering [Republicans], you know, a very, very good deal here.” CNN's senior political analyst later marveled at Obama's centrist leadership: “Right now, I think the Republicans are kind of up against the wall here because the president looks like the adult. He's put something on the table.” Unfortunately for Borger, the president didn't produce a detailed plan: he gave a speech at a press conference. And as CBO Director Dough Elmendorf pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't estimate speeches . Unlike Obama, who hasn't put much of anything on the table – at least nothing the CBO can score – House and Senate Republicans have put forward a number of cost-saving measures in their plan to ” cut, cap, and balance .” House Speaker John Boehner said as much during his rebuttal press conference on Monday: The American people will not accept, and the House cannot pass, a bill that raises taxes on job creators. The House can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. My colleagues and I feel we should enact a balanced budget amendment to keep the federal government from spending us into the same situation again. I think we also need real reductions in spending right now and spending caps to ensure that progress we make is not undone in the future… A bill that doesn’t meet these tests can’t pass the House of Representatives. ( H/T RedState ) Borger can claim the GOP is “up against the wall,” but it was the Obama administration that called for a “clean” vote on raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending. Since then, the debate has shifted from whether Congress will cut spending to how much and how soon. Yet Borger still maintains the pragmatic president has outmaneuvered the recalcitrant Republicans. A transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN AC 360 July 11, 2011 10:14 p.m. ET ANDERSON COOPER: “Raw Politics” tonight: just 22 bargaining days until the U.S. Treasury runs out of money to pay the bills, throwing the country into default and the economy into a greater crisis. President Obama and congressional leaders met for a second straight day trying to hammer out a deficit-reduction deal. Republicans have said without such a deal they won't allow vote to allow more borrowing to raise the debt ceiling. Now, bear in mind lawmakers have always griped, but they've have never failed to do that ever. They will talk again tomorrow. Today, the President called for action. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States: I have been hearing from my Republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious way. I have been hearing from them that this is one of the things that's creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. And so, what I have said to them is, “Let's go.” COOPER: Unclear though whether he can deliver the left wing of his own party. Unclear also whether the Tea Party Republicans will sign on to any deal with any revenue increasers beyond selling government property and other fairly minor measures. House Speaker Boehner, who seemed receptive to a grand compromise which might have included tax concessions from Republicans in exchange for cost savings in Medicare and Social Security from the White House, backed away on Saturday. Today he said, no tax increases or no deal. Rep. JOHN BOEHNER, Speaker of the House: The American people will not accept and the House cannot pass a bill that raises taxes on job creators. Now, the House can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. COOPER: His colleague Majority Leader Eric Cantor standing firm too, holding up a quote from President Obama back in 2009 about not raising taxes during a recession. Now, here's what the President said back then in 2009 to NBC's Chuck Todd in response to a voter's question. OBAMA: First of all, he's right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have instead cut taxes. So I guess what I would say to Scott is, his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession. COOPER: Now, in fact the stimulus was about one-third tax cuts. So in fairness, he did not raise taxes. He and Congress later passing a payroll tax holiday that is in effect right now. A year later he and Congress did approve tax breaks to help employers hire more people. Now, you can decide for yourself whether that's a tax cut or the kind of wasteful spending through the tax code the president says he's now against when it comes to corporate jets. In any case, here's how Mr. Obama today reconciled that 2009 statement with his current position on taxes. OBAMA: I want to be crystal clear: nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increases – increasing taxes next year. We're talking about potentially 2013 and the out years. COOPER: The question is what will the economy look like then? The answer to that depends heavily on what happens now. Here to talk about it is chief political analyst Gloria Borger and David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office. Currently he's president and CEO of the Comeback America Initiative. David, is there any case to be made for not raising the debt ceiling? DAVID WALKER, former United States comptroller general: No, there really isn't. We have to raise the debt ceiling because the fact is we don't know what the markets would do, what would to happen to the stock markets, what would to happen to the interest rates. And for every one percent or 100 basis point increase in interest rates, it's $150 billion a year on our total debt. COOPER: So how do you see the debate that is happening now? I mean what's your take on it? WALKER: Well, both sides have agreed that they're going to raise the debt ceiling limit, but it looks like it's going to be a smaller deal rather than a bigger deal because the Republicans don't want to do anything that could even be called remotely a tax increase. I think after the 2012 elections, we're going to get comprehensive tax reform that will broaden the base, lower rates and generate more revenues, among other things, along with starting to deal with entitlement reforms. But I think right now, we're going to get a smaller deal and kick the can down the road with regard to the tough stuff. COOPER: Gloria, politically, is that what it seems like, a smaller deal? GLORIA BORGER, CNN senior political analyst: Yes, it does, Anderson. And I think if you sort of step back for a moment and take a look at this it seems to me really to be a defining moment for the Republican Party here. The base of this party is conservative and it's anti-tax. And you had the House speaker, a Republican, the president of the United States, sitting down and believing that they could try to cut a huge deal that would actually go a long way towards solving the deficit problem. But John Boehner, the Speaker, took that back to his conservative Republicans in the House, which I believe represent the base of the party, and they said, absolutely no way, because 230 of those Republicans in the House have taken a no-tax pledge, no-new-tax pledges and they're going to stick by it. And I think things may change after the next election, but as for now, the Republican Party is stuck and they can't even accept a good deal. The president was offering them, you know, a very, very good deal here. You know, $3 in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases. WALKER: Well, John Boehner is correct that the base of the Republican Party will not support any type of tax increases, even if it's eliminating tax expenditures where there can be a bipartisan agreement. He's wrong to say the American people won't. He's just wrong. And right now the President has got the high ground because he's basically saying, let's go for a long-term deal. I will put Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security on the table. All you need to do is to put tax expenditures on the table. By the way, we have the lowest revenues as a percentage of GDP in decades. It's less than 16 percent. Nonetheless, we are where we are and I think both parties are going to have to go to the electorate in 2012. COOPER: But can you get a compromise without some sort of tax-increasing revenues somehow? WALKER: I can come up – I can come up with $2 trillion to $3 trillion worth of deficit reduction without any tax increases, ok? BORGER: You know, Anderson, I was talking to a senior White House adviser today, for example, who suggested that perhaps they could get a deal, a smaller deal of closing some of these tax loopholes and extending the payroll tax holiday for a certain period of time, so there would be no net tax increase. So a little bit of trickery, but maybe they could do it that way. COOPER: Just politically, Gloria, how does this play out, do you think? I mean, obviously we have this presidential election coming up. David is saying Obama seems like he's perceived as taking the high ground. BORGER: He does. COOPER: Clearly he's interested in getting independents on board. BORGER: Right. COOPER: He's lost a lot of independent support over the years. How does this play for both sides? BORGER: Well, I think the President as you point out is clearly talking to independent voters. Independent voters care about the deficit and they also want Washington to work together, which is what we heard the President talk about an awful lot today in his press conference. It kind of reminded me a little bit of Bill Clinton there. In the end, I think they all know they have to get something done or they will all suffer. Right now, I think the Republicans are kind of up against the wall here because the president looks like the adult. He's put something on the table. I'm not sure that he have could have sold it to his own party, but he put it on the table. So it's up to the Republicans now to come back and he told them today to go home, do your homework and tell me how we're going to make up the rest of this money we have got to raise without – without those revenues. So they're on the spot. COOPER: Do you think this goes – do you think this goes to August 2nd or do you think this is going to be done sooner, David? WALKER: Well, I think they can do it before August 2nd. I mean, you know, it depends upon how big a deal they're trying to do. You have to turn this into legislative language and frankly you have to sell it to the caucuses. I mean they're not going to take a fait accompli deal. And that's one of the reasons why Congress has to stay in session until a deal is done and until there's agreement. BORGER: And complicating all of this, Anderson, is the fact that you've got Republican presidential candidates out there saying don't raise the debt limit. Tim Pawlenty said he was hoping and praying that they would vote against raising the debt limit. So that plays into the Republican congressional discussions as well. COOPER: Never easy to work out this stuff in the midst of an election year? WALKER: You have to work it out. The stakes are too high. Quite frankly anybody who says – I don't care who they are – who says they will vote against the debt ceiling increase irrespective of the deal is irresponsible. COOPER: David Walker, I appreciate it. It's always good to have you on. Gloria Borger as well. Thank you very much. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Continue reading …

If prosecutors in the US decide to pick a fight with Rupert Murdoch and his media empire, the phone-hacking scandal on the other side of the Atlantic has provided them with plenty of ammunition, legal experts say. His News of the World is accused of paying off police officers in…

Continue reading …

Some computers and other electronic imports are packed with malware before they’re even out of the box, a congressional expert on cybersecurity warns. Hackers overseas planning cyber attacks are planting bad codes in components headed for the US, Rep. Jim Langevin tells Reuters . “Corrupting hardware and software is embedded in…

Continue reading …