ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Romney Tells 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

How Romney Got It All Wrong On Wall Street Reform

Fact-Checking The Debate In Real Time

Security

New Ad Questions Romney’s Ability To Serve As Commander-In-Chief

By Ben Armbruster posted from ThinkProgress Security on Oct 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm

(Photo: AP)

Progressive foreign policy group the Truman National Security Project today released a new adthat features several 9/11-era veterans questioning whether Mitt Romney is qualified to be commander-in-chief.

The one minute video first highlights Romney’s various foreign policy fumbles throughout the campaign, including his confusing Afghanistan policy, his failure to mention the war there and commemorate U.S. troops in his RNC speech, and his campaign’s reluctance to talk about national security. “You have shown us from London to Libya that you are over your head,” an Army vet says, with the ad closing with three other vets saying they don’t trust Romney to lead the military. Watch it:

Apart from Romney’s foreign policy missteps, veterans should have cause for concern. Romney hasn’t laid out any concrete plan for how he would tackle veteran unemployment or any other issues the nation’s military members face after serving in war.

Drew Sloan, a West Point graduate who served combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, appeared in the ad and spoke at the Truman Project’s launch event. “Neither of us really want to make this kind of video,” Sloan said, referring to a fellow vet that also took part in the project. But, Sloan added, “Mitt Romney is not qualified to be commander-in-chief,” citing the fact that Romney appeared to go to great lengths to avoid service in Vietnam in the 1960s and has now surrounded himself with those who took the United States to war in Iraq.

“The ad will run on television in Ohio – a key battleground state in the Presidential election – starting today,” said a Truman statement, adding that it “is part of a significant buy which will also run online in Florida, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Ohio.”

Justice

Meet The Montana Man Convicted Of A Federal Crime For Working To Make Medical Marijuana Safer

By Nicole Flatow posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Oct 4, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Last month, a federal judge parted ways with conventional harsh penalties for medical marijuana by sentencing Tom Daubert to five years of probation and rejecting prosecutors’ recommendation of six to eight years in prison for his one-time participation in a medical marijuana dispensary, considered legal under state law. Daubert, who was represented by some of the best lawyers in the country and whose story was featured in an award-winning documentary, was one of the lucky ones. Richard Flor, one of Daubert’s partners who continued on with the marijuana dispensary after Daubert withdrew, died in federal custody in August. And many of the patients they once served now have nowhere to turn, after federal officials demolished the state’s industry, with raids on 26 dispensaries, and a threatened roll-back of the state law allowing medical marijuana.

But even with the light punishment, the longtime Montana lobbyist who had aspired to make his medical marijuana dispensary a model for compliance with state law is now a criminal in the eyes of the law.

Daubert had been a highly successful lobbyist and public relations consultant for more than 20 years before he was approached about helping with a medical marijuana ballot initiative in 2004. He held degrees from Princeton and the University of Montana. Now, at almost 60 years old, Daubert is required to inform his probation officer when he leaves the county, to let his officer into his house at any time of day or night, and to answer any question he is asked.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Daubert describes the crushing consequences of the demolition of Montana’s medical marijuana community:
Read more

Health

47,000 Women Die Each Year From Unsafe Abortions

By Tara Culp-Ressler posted from ThinkProgress Health on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm

According to the Guttmacher Institute, complications from unsafe abortions in the developing world contribute to 47,000 preventable deaths each year. The advocacy organization points out that reducing the number of unsafe abortion procedures worldwide is a public health imperative, since every woman should have the right to make safe reproductive choices for herself without risking her life.

In order to raise awareness about the essential need for safer abortion services, the Guttmacher Institute released a video highlighting the disparity between access to reproductive rights across the globe, as well as the commonalities between women who seek abortions:

In all parts of the world, women have abortions for similar reasons, often for the very same reasons that woman who have access to modern contraception choose to use birth control. Women want to be able to delay having children if they are financially unable to care for a child or additional children, if they are not in a stable relationship with a partner who can help them care for a child, or if they still need to finish their education. But contraception isn’t readily available in many of the countries where women are dying from botched abortion procedures. Guttmacher estimates that about 222 million women in the developing world are trying to avoid pregnancy, but aren’t using a modern form of contraception, putting themselves at risk for an unintended pregnancy and an unsafe abortion.

On the other hand, Guttmacher points out that the legality of abortion — unlike access to contraception — has absolutely no correlation to the abortion rate, since women have abortion procedures regardless of the law. In fact, some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in countries in Latin America and Africa, in places where abortion is highly restricted but where women have many unintended pregnancies because they lack adequate access to contraceptive services. On the other hand, some of the lowest abortion rates are in countries in western Europe, where modern contraceptives are more readily available and where abortion is safe, legal, and accessible.

Expanding access to contraception, rather than restricting abortion, will ultimately save women’s lives. As the video puts it, “It is the basic right of every woman to decide whether and when to have a child without having to put her health or her life at risk. It is time for all countries to make that right a reality.”

Election

Why It’s Hard To Trust Romney On Oil Subsidies

By Rebecca Leber posted from ThinkProgress Election on Oct 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Throughout the election, Romney has campaigned specifically on prioritizing oil above other forms of energy, openly consulting with oil executives and donors on his energy policy. With a team led by an oil billionaire and fossil fuel lobbyists and industry campaign donations totaling $2.2 million, it’s unsurprising Romney has been largely quiet on oil subsidies. Romney’s energy plan to open more public lands to drilling and gut safety regulations would only help oil firms.

But at the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney backed away from his oil-soaked campaign by mentioning for the first time openness to ending certain subsidies for the oil and gas industry:

ROMNEY: Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent.

The world’s five largest oil corporations, which include Exxon, receive $2.4 billion tax breaks annually, not the “small drillers” as Romney claims. Annual tax breaks for the entire oil and gas industry total $4 billion. The Center for American Progress details the specific deductions and tax breaks that oil companies receive at taxpayers’ cost.

The public overwhelmingly favors ending these permanent tax breaks, at the same time Republicans claim they don’t exist. While the five largest oil companies earned $137 billion profit last year, and $60 billion for the first half of 2012, they paid relatively low taxes, like ExxonMobil’s 13 percent federal effective tax rate.

If Republicans maintain the oil industry’s special tax breaks, Romney’s plan to lower corporate tax rates would provide the five largest oil companies with another $2.3 billion subsidy annually.

Justice

Anti-Immigrant Group Launches Racist Ad Campaign To Pit African-Americans Against Immigrants

By Amanda Peterson Beadle posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Oct 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm

The anti-immigrant group NumbersUSA, which seeks to limit legal immigration, has put out a new, racist ad that tries to pit African Americans against immigrants. It features an African American man with his family explaining that he needs a job:

What I don’t understand is why our leaders are going to admit another million immigrant workers next year to take jobs when 3 million black Americans can’t find work. I mean, do our leaders really think black Americans don’t want to work? Let’s slow down mass immigration and save jobs for Americans — all Americans.

Watch it here:

Lest there be any doubt, this appeal to racial resentment has no basis in reality. In truth, immigration helps boost the economy. For example, if Congress passed the DREAM Act, the qualified undocumented immigrants who received legal status could pursue higher education and earn higher salaries, which leads them to spend more and pay more in taxes. That would lead to an economic impact of $329 billion and 1.4 million new jobs by 2030.

Persistently high unemployment rates for African Americans is a systemic problem that cannot be addressed simply by reducing the number of immigrants. Instead of getting rid of work permits, lawmakers should focus on programs for job training and job creation as well as vigorously enforcing policies that stop labor market discrimination in order to help African American workers.

It should not be a surprising, however, that anti-immigrant groups are touting spurious claims in order to push their agenda. In 2009, CNN aired an incendiary ad by the nativist front group Coalition For The Future Of The American Worker, warning that the government is letting in 1.5 million foreign workers a year to take jobs from the 15 million unemployed Americans. And an anti-immigrant California group ran a TV ad blaming global warming on immigrants. The lies and distortions do not change the fact that immigration is good for the U.S. economy, and it is contemptible to try to pit Americans against each other and against immigrants to stop it.

Election

Romney Campaign Chair On Obama: ‘When You’re Not That Bright You Can’t Get Better Prepared’

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress Election on Oct 4, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Mitt Romney campaign co-chair and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R) appeared on Fox News on Thursday and took a victory lap following last night’s first presidential debate.

Sununu described Obama’s performance as “babbling,” “lazy,” and “disengaged,” and dismissed the possibility that he could do better in the future. “When you’re not that bright you can’t get better prepared,” he said. Watch it:

During a separate interview on MSNBC, Sununu doubled down on the characterization. “I think you saw him admit it the night before when he delivered the pizzas. He said, you know, they’re making me do this work. He didn’t want to prepare for this debate. He’s lazy and disengaged.”

Election

Video: Republican Party Training ‘Poll Challengers’ In Illegal Voter Suppression

By Aviva Shen posted from ThinkProgress Election on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Sandoval GOP vice-chair Pat Morlen

As courts continue to block voter suppression efforts around the county, conservative groups are redoubling efforts to intimidate voters at the polls come Election Day.

New Mexico has started its own voter purge of 177,000 people, including a voting rights activist married to a state representative. However, as the law won’t go into effect until November 2014, the local Republican Party has apparently started training “poll challengers” for this election. A hidden camera caught Pat Morlen, the vice chair of the Sandoval County Republican Party, instructing volunteer “poll challengers” to demand photo ID and force legal voters to use provisional ballots. The video, filmed by the nonprofit ProgressNow New Mexico, shows vice-chair Morlen making several claims that directly contradict New Mexico law:

MORLEN: You can request to see a form of ID. At the request of two or more precinct board members of different political parties, a voter shall still present the required physical form of identification.

VOLUNTEER: What happens if we get people in there who are part of what the media is calling the purge?

MORLEN: They’ll vote provisional. That’s all that’s gonna happen.

Watch it:

In spite of these false instructions, New Mexicans who were flagged as “inactive” voters are still permitted to vote with regular ballots in November. The misinformation didn’t stop there. ProgressNow compiled an extensive list of the lies presented as election law, including claims that Spanish speakers are not permitted interpreters and that the police are involved in election monitoring:

CLAIM: “The police are supposed to be the ones who ensure that the election is legit.” FACT: Elections officials preside over elections, not the police. FACT: Police can be enlisted to ensure the orderly conduct of an election but officers who interfere with an election are guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

CLAIM: The trainer claims a person who changed their address but stayed within their same voting precinct should receive a provisional ballot. FACT: Anyone in this situation is given a regular ballot at the polls. (See 1 NMAC 10.3)

CLAIM: The trainer claims that interpreters are not provided to non-English speakers and then is unsure if polling places will provide Spanish-language ballots. FACT: Assistance for people in language minorities is provided, as are Spanish-language ballots.

Morlen also disparaged disabled New Mexicans, opining, “if the person can’t even say their name, at least their name, I don’t see why they should be voting.”

Obama has a narrow lead over Romney in the New Mexico polls, projecting a very close race. This particular training was filmed just two days after a study was released estimating 10 million Latinos could be disenfranchised by various voter suppression efforts. While Morlen’s statements are easily debunked, New Mexico voters are likely to be harassed and intimidated by these volunteer “voter challengers” armed with false information. But New Mexican voters aren’t the only targets; the national Tea Party group True the Vote has mobilized a large army of volunteers to go to the polls all over the country to harass voters. True the Vote tested out their voter intimidation skills during Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) recall election in June, when poll watchers blocked students and African Americans from voting.

Election

Romney Admits Pushing Misinformation In Debate

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress Election on Oct 4, 2012 at 11:53 am

During Wednesday night’s president debate, Mitt Romney claimed that “half” of the green firms Obama invested “have gone out of business” and noted that “a number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.”

Fact checkers — including this blog — quickly pounced on the claim, explaining that only a tiny percentage of firms that received grants or loans from the Recovery Act have actually filed for bankruptcy. And now, the Romney campaign itself is walking back the GOP presidential candidate’s claim. From Michael Grunwald, author of The New New Deal: The Hidden History of Change in the Obama Era:


Grunwald estimates that less than 1 percent of green firms have gone bad in terms of dollar value.

Romney also singled out Tesla Motors, which designs and manufactures electric vehicles, and received a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy. Last night, he quipped, “I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?” But the company is not a loser. “Founder Elon Musk says it will accelerate its payment of the principal in the spring — and the Department of Energy isn’t complaining it’s not getting its money back.” Romney, unfortunately, has turned to rooting against an American company in his effort to unseat Obama.

Economy

At First Debate, Mitt Romney Admits That He Would ‘Absolutely Not’ Support His Own Tax Plan

By Travis Waldron and Jeff Spross posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Oct 4, 2012 at 11:02 am

Mitt Romney seemingly walked back his support of his own tax plan last night at the first presidential debate, telling President Obama and the American people that he would “absolutely not” support a plan that cuts taxes on the wealthy, raises taxes on the middle class, or adds to the federal budget deficit. Independent analyses have found that it is mathematically impossible for Romney’s plan, as written, to avoid either adding to the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class. And Romney himself said at a debate in February that he was “going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.”

After President Obama cited a report from the Tax Policy Center showing that Romney’s plan couldn’t uphold his three principles, Romney said he would not support such a plan, then reiterated the same three principles:

So — so if — if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I’d say absolutely not. I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. … I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families.

Watch the two remarks:

The first problem is obvious: Romney’s plan is a clearly defined tax cut for the wealthy. Even if he closed every loophole that benefits the wealthy, he wouldn’t generate enough revenue to make up for the rate reduction he would give them, and even if he does increase the share the wealthy pay, that doesn’t mean they won’t still end up with a tax cut.

The second problem is that the other two principles of his tax plan are mathematically incompatible, as the Tax Policy Center study Obama cited proved. There is not enough revenue to be gained from closing loopholes that only target the rich to make up the lost revenue from Romney’s rate cut, so if he were to uphold his principal point of not adding to the deficit, he would have to raise taxes on middle class families by as much as $2,000. If he were to maintain his third most important point and avoid raising taxes on the middle class, he would add a significant amount to the deficit. It is simply impossible to do both.

Justice

Conservative ‘Kingmaker’ Compares Marriage Equality To Slavery

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:08 am

Anti-Gay Activist Bob Vander Plaats

Anti-gay activist Bob Vander Plaats, who was labeled the Iowa GOP’s “kingmaker” after Republican presidential candidates lined up to pay homage to him, was the architect of the successful effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices, and he’s now spearheading a new effort to remove a fourth justice. All four of the justices Vander Plaats opposes joined the state supreme court’s unanimous opinion recognizing that the Iowa Constitution does not permit marriage discrimination against gay couples.

At a rally last month, Vander Plaats explained why he is so offended by the targeted justices’ application of the state constitution. And then he compared marriage equality to slavery:

We must get back to the constitution. . . . It is the court that should be independent — free of politics — to uphold the constitution, not to trample on the constitution, not to insert politics in the constitution, and not to run the leftist agenda through the court system. That’s not their role.

The Iowa State Bar Association, they’ll tell you — they’ll say “Bob, this is only one opinion. It’s only one opinion. You can’t be that upset at a court because of one opinion.” One opinion: Dred Scott — blacks are property. One opinion: Roe v. Wade — we’ve killed sixty million babies off a court’s opinion. One opinion, the Varnum opinion and you are now seeing same-sex marriage infiltrate this state. One opinion, where a court legislates from the bench, when a court executes from the bench, when a court tries to amend the constitution from the bench, and when a court tries to do that, it is our responsibility as the people — the final arbitrators — to kick them off the bench.

Watch it:

Vander Plaats’ attempt to compare extending the blessings of liberty to all couples with a decision which claimed black people are “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” is obviously the most glaring part of his speech. But he should not be let off the hook for claiming that eliminating marriage equality in Iowa would remove politics from the state judiciary or “uphold the constitution.” In reality, the polar opposite is true.

The Iowa Constitution speaks with far more expansive language and with far greater clarity than the United States Constitution on the subject of equality. It provides that “[a]ll laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Marriage discrimination grants marriage rights to straight citizens which do not equally belong to gay citizens. It is not at all surprising that the Iowa justices unanimously reached the decision they did in Varnum — the Iowa Constitution is unambiguous that marriage discrimination is not allowed.

So when Vander Plaats tries to take revenge against these justices by tossing them out of office, he is the one who injecting politics into the constitution and he is the one who is trying to run his agenda through the court system. Vander Plaats’ campaign is nothing less than an effort to make judges too scared to follow the law when the law conflicts with conservative views.

Politics

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

By Igor Volsky on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:08 am

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.
Read more

  • Comment Icon

Politics

ThinkProgress’ LiveBlog Of The First Presidential Debate

By ThinkProgress on Oct 3, 2012 at 8:37 pm

Welcome to ThinkProgress’ live coverage of the first presidential debate, hosted by the University of Denver, in Colorado. Our teams in Washington D.C. and on the ground in Denver will fact-check both candidates’ claims in real time and offer a wide range of multimedia content. Tonight’s debate is moderated by PBS’ Jim Lehrer and will focus on domestic policy.

LATEST UPDATE
11:06 pm

ThinkProgess is participating in a Google Hangout

We’re hanging out with Reason, Roll Call & the Christian Science Monitor talking about the debate. Check it out:

10:57 pm

Most Tweeted political debate

10:40 pm

GOP won't tell voters how they'll pay for Romney's massive tax cuts

ThinkProgress spoke with freshman Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) at the debate about specific deductions that Congress might take up to pay for Mitt Romney’s massive tax breaks for the wealthy. Tipton cautioned that House Republicans would continue to be “cautious about specifics” because debating individual loopholes or deductions would create “uncertainty” in the marketplace. “Our specifics will be general in nature,” Tipton said. President Obama chastised this approach during the debate, mocking Romney for supposedly having a secret swath of deductions that would be popular to end.

10:33 pm

So what will Romney do on health care?

During his closing argument, Romney promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but later said that he would put into place “the kind of principles we put in place in my home state.” So he does support Obamacare-type reforms for the nation?

10:28 pm

Romney proposed consolidating the Department of Education

When asked if government has a role in improving public education, Mitt Romney told the audience that the federal government can play a positive role. But earlier this year, in closed-door meetings with donors, Romney said that he would “either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller.”

Read the full live blog

  • Comment Icon

Older

Switch to Mobile