Erika Eichelberger

Erika Eichelberger

Reporter

Erika Eichelberger is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She has also written for The NationThe Brooklyn Rail, and TomDispatch. Email her at eeichelberger [at] motherjones [dot] com. 

Get my RSS |

GOP Front-Runner Compares Gay Marriage to Polygamy

| Mon Jun. 23, 2014 10:28 AM EDT
Republican House candidate Pedro Celis

Last week, a top GOP House candidate in Washington state compared gay marriage to polygamy.

"Marriage is something more for religion to decide," Republican front-runner Pedro Celis said Thursday when asked about his stance on same-sex marriage at a GOP candidate forum, the Seattle Times reported. "Is this marriage or not? Polygamy—is it fine or not? It's a religion thing."

The National Republican Congressional Committee has backed Celis, a former Microsoft engineer, to run against Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene in Washington's first congressional district. DelBene is expected to hold onto her seat in November, but national Republicans are trying extra hard to change that. The NRCC recently bumped Celis into the highest tier of its candidate recruitment and training program. Celis is now a "Young Gun," meaning that the committee considers him to be on a "clear path to victory."

In 2012, Celis voted against Washington's initiative to legalize gay marriage. He says same-sex marriage issues are best left to the states.

Celis wasn't the only one to express interesting views on same-sex marriage at Thursday's event. Another GOP contender, former county council staffer Ed Moats, said "homosexual marriage" is "anthropologically regressive." The Republican primary will be held on August 5.

Before this event, Celis had said his campaign was focused on Obamacare and jobs.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

7 Republicans Who Said Obama Wasn't Trying Hard Enough to Bring the Benghazi Attacker to Justice

| Tue Jun. 17, 2014 1:51 PM EDT
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif)

The Washington Post broke a big scoop on Tuesday with the news that US special forces, working with FBI agents, mounted a secret raid in Libya this past weekend that captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, who is suspected of masterminding the attack on the US diplomatic facility in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The Post story noted that the operation had been months in the making. In fact, US Special Forces had a plan to apprehend Abu Khattala last October, days after US commandos in Tripoli snatched Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, who was accused of bombing US embassies in East Africa in 1998. But that attempt to apprehend Abu Khattala had to be called off at the last minute.

So for a long stretch, maybe a year or more, the Obama administration had been trying to figure out how best to grab Abu Khattala, who was identified as a possible Benghazi ringleader soon after the September 11, 2012, assault. Yet for much of that time, Republican critics of the president have repeatedly criticized Obama for not capturing the Benghazi perps. Even though it took a decade to nab Osama bin Laden, GOPers have depicted Obama as feckless on the Benghazi front, with some even saying that he was not truly interested in bringing the Benghazi killers to justice.

Here's a sampling of those GOP attacks:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): In November, Cruz criticized the Obama administration for failing to use a State Department program that offers rewards to people with information about terrorists in order to track down the Benghazi attacker: "The State Department's Rewards for Justice Program exists to help the US identify and apprehend its enemies, but the Obama administration has not used it to pursue the terrorists who attacked our personnel in Benghazi," he said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.): In August, Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has held numerous hearings on the Benghazi attack, harped on the administration's "delay" in apprehending Abu Khattala: "If our government knows who perpetrated the attack that killed four Americans, it is critical that they be questioned and placed in custody of US officials without delay," he said.  "Delays in apprehending the suspected Benghazi killers will only put American lives at further and needless risk."

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), and John McCain (R-Ariz.): In a February letter to Obama, the three GOP senators wrote, "In almost 17 months, none of the terrorists have been brought to justice. The families of the murdered Americans deserve to see the terrorists brought to justice. Moreover, terrorists around the world need to know that if they kill Americans, we will hunt them down and bring them to justice. Allowing terrorists apparently involved in the attack to sit and give interviews in cafés sends a dangerous message that there are no consequences for killing Americans."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah): "[L]et's not forget the Benghazi terrorist attackers," Chaffetz told USA Today in October. "There's been no visibility on whether or not we're pursuing that."

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.): In August, when the Justice Department filed charges against Abu Khattala, Wolf suggested the administration wouldn't have acted without Republican pressure. "I think they're feeling pressure to do something, to show they're making progress," he told the Washington Times, adding that charges against suspects have likely been delayed by "confusion" among US law enforcement authorities.

By now, it should be obvious: It can take a while—even years—to capture a suspected terrorist overseas. (Ruqai, the embassy bombings suspect, was apprehended 15 years after the attacks.) Yet that didn't stop these Republicans and other conservatives from slamming the president and suggesting publicly—in a real underhanded dig—that Obama was not seeking the murderers of Benghazi. Now what will they say? That his heart wasn't really in it?

Industry Says Car Insurance Obviously Affordable for Poor Because They Buy Booze

| Thu Jun. 12, 2014 12:04 PM EDT

Poverty in America remains stuck at record levels. But people who are poor aren't that bad off—because they can afford booze, cigarettes, and TVs, the car insurance industry said Monday.

The odd rationale was included in a letter to the Federal Insurance Office, an insurance industry watchdog, in response to a request for comments on whether auto insurance is affordable for low-income Americans.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), which represents half of the nation's car insurance companies, asserts in its letter that households in the lowest two-fifths of the income spectrum spend nearly as much on alcohol and cigarettes as they do on car insurance, and even more on "audio and visual (A/V) equipment and services." Therefore, the industry group says, "it seems implausible to suggest that automobile insurance is not 'affordable' for these consumers."

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA), a consumer advocacy group, calls the trade group's comments not only "offensive," but "factually incorrect." Here's why: Only about 19 percent of all low-income households spend any money on cigarettes in a typical three-month period, and only 22 percent spend any money on alcohol. When you average all low-income household spending, you find that these households spend about $102 more a year on car insurance than on cigarettes and alcohol, according to the most recent numbers from the federal government’s Consumer Expenditure Survey.

"Many households spend nothing on these products and this abuse of statistics reveals the underlying disrespect that many auto insurers have for low-income drivers," CFA's director of insurance J. Robert Hunter said Tuesday.

Car insurance companies often charge higher rates to blue-collar workers and people with less education. Low-income and moderate-income drivers with insurance spend about $1,000 a year on coverage.

Thu Nov. 29, 2012 12:08 PM EST
Mon Nov. 26, 2012 3:50 PM EST
Thu Nov. 15, 2012 11:23 PM EST
Thu Nov. 15, 2012 7:03 AM EST
Tue Nov. 6, 2012 7:48 PM EST
Fri Oct. 19, 2012 3:00 PM EDT
Thu Oct. 4, 2012 12:54 PM EDT
Wed Oct. 3, 2012 11:09 PM EDT
Wed Oct. 3, 2012 11:43 AM EDT
Wed Sep. 26, 2012 12:09 PM EDT
Thu Sep. 20, 2012 6:23 PM EDT
Mon Aug. 27, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Fri Aug. 10, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Mon Jun. 25, 2012 4:54 PM EDT
Wed Jun. 20, 2012 7:21 PM EDT
Fri Jun. 8, 2012 6:36 PM EDT
Fri Jun. 8, 2012 6:02 AM EDT
Mon May. 28, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Mon Apr. 30, 2012 6:32 PM EDT
Sat Apr. 21, 2012 6:00 AM EDT
Sat Mar. 31, 2012 7:00 AM EDT
Thu Mar. 1, 2012 8:00 AM EST