But when it comes to climate-change policy, emboldening the GOP’s conservative wing won’t push the House rightward much — if at all. That’s because there’s little room to move any further in that direction.
Many hot-button issues expose fault lines in the GOP. Some Republicans — backed by the business community — are open to action on immigration-reform legislation, while swaths of the conservative base oppose anything that would provide citizenship to any undocumented residents.
Similarly, on the debt ceiling, the business lobby has battled GOP conservatives who have resisted lifting the nation’s borrowing limit, at least without steep White House concessions.
These big divides just aren’t there on carbon-emissions policy. In recent years, House Republicans, backed by the party’s establishment figures, have voted overwhelmingly to nullify EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions.
An array of powerful business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have backed various pieces of House GOP legislation to strip or greatly limit EPA’s power to curb emissions from power plants and factories.
The harmony between industry goals and conservatives is often present on a range of other energy issues, too, though there could be tensions over tax credits that hard-liners and conservative advocacy groups want to kill.
The House GOP has voted with unity — and support from business and industry groups — in recent years to lift offshore-drilling restrictions, kill planned federal regulation of “fracking,” and nullify various other EPA and Interior Department rules.
On the related question of climate science, many Republicans reject or strongly question the scientific consensus around human-induced climate change, but subtle divides may be emerging.
In late May, House Speaker John Boehner said EPA’s carbon-emissions standards for power plants would hurt the economy, but he passed up a chance to attack climate science, instead telling reporters: “I’m not qualified to debate the science.”
But when it comes to opposing greenhouse-emissions controls, House Republicans speak with one voice.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”