When news broke last week that the United Nations-affiliated Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was dispatching election observers from 23 nations to the United States, conservative groups went up in arms, claiming that liberal activists had sought international assistance to fight Republican-led voting reform efforts. Soon afterward, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening the observers with arrest if they got within 100 feet of a polling place and complaining that OSCE officials had met with a group formerly affiliated with ACORN. Yesterday, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz, who has made voter fraud a central theme of his time in office, followed suit, saying that there would be "no exception" made for OSCE members to enter polling stations.
As a member of the OSCE, the United States has invited outside observers into the country since 2002 without incident. The State Department dismissed Abbott's complaint, saying that the election observers are simply observers (and would be eligible for immunity if they are arrested). "[T]he mandate of the OSCE is designed to be absolutely and completely impartial, and that's what we plan on when we participate and that's what we'd expect here," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told the Washington Examiner. The OSCE has expressed willingness to meet with both liberal and conservative voter groups and has acknowledged the controversy over GOP-led voter ID efforts in a report released earlier this month.
In any case, any role the OSCE plays on November 6 will probably be minimal. A list of election observers uploaded by conservative attorney J. Christian Adams suggests that only two observers will be in Texas, both in Austin; two others are scheduled to be in Des Moines, Iowa. But the OSCE, which sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling Abbott's threat of arrest "unacceptable," also responded to Abbott, saying that it plans to follow state laws and wouldn't need to enter polling places in order to observe the election. In addition to monitoring potential voter suppression, the OSCE also plans to research campaign finance, new voting technology, and the media. Meanwhile, many more American election monitors will be at polling stations, ranging from impartial observers to labor union members and recruits from a tea party group.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Romney Caught Trying to Swiftboat the Auto Rescue
Posted on On the Economy
by Jared Bernstein
One of the most deceptive jujitsu moves in modern campaign is known as swiftboating: trying to turn one of your opponent’s strengths into a weakness. Given the centrality of Ohio to electoral success less than a week from today (!), it should be no surprise that the Romney team choose that locale to go after the success of the President’s auto rescue.
Full disclosure: as a member of the President’s economics team I strongly advocated for the rescue, as per both my principal (the Vice-President) and the view held by myself and others that the employment costs would be particularly steep in communities that comprised the relevant supply chains. When you think about auto jobs, don’t just think about the factory at the end of the line where they assemble the cars and trucks. Think about all the small and medium size manufacturers that make those parts.
That’s where many of the new jobs in Ohio are coming from and it’s an important piece of evidence for the bailout’s success. Which makes it catnip for the Romney swiftboaters.
Dana Milbank takes this apart in this AM’s WaPo, but the gist is that Chrysler recently announced that they’d be expanding production of Jeeps—adding new plants—in China to help sell into that market. Note that they’re not talking about shifting US production overseas. They’re talking about tapping a trend that I’ve written about before here at OTE: producing closer to your target markets.
But in Romney-world, this became an attack on the President auto rescue because according to the campaign, Chrysler was planning to move all of their US production of Jeeps to China. Romney: “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”
Milbank prints the response from an aghast Chrysler exec:
But what’s particularly ridiculous here is that Romney is criticizing Chrysler’s global expansion. Since when do conservatives object to that? Is there anyone who believes for a nanosecond that expansion abroad by US multinational’s would be viewed critically by a Romney administration?
Back here in reality what we should be debating right about now is the relative positions of the candidates on policies that really matter to both auto production here and investment abroad. Gov. Romney opposed the government’s role in GM and Chrysler’s managed bankruptcy. Given the absence of private financing at the time, had he been in charge, these companies would have been facing liquidation. Instead, as the chart shows, the American auto industry has added 250,000 just since its turnaround (and not that this chart is a few months old; autos employment is up to 250K and sales are on track for 15 million this year).
Moreover, on international tax policy there are big, important differences that haven’t gotten enough emphasis so far. Gov. Romney’s plan is to allow multinationals to avoid paying any American taxes on their overseas earnings, a clear incentive to outsource, and one according to economist Kim Clausing would lead to 800,000 jobs shifted overseas.
Note the difference between this and the Jeep case. The Chrysler executive cited above explicitly denounced shifting production overseas. Clausing’s analysis, however, suggest that Romney “territorial” tax plan would incentivize precisely such shifts.
The President’s plan is to increase the tax incentives for producing here, not abroad. These include a lower corporate tax rate with benefits for manufacturers and for onshoring formerly offshored work, paid for in part by closing loopholes that currently make it cheaper to produce abroad. Given my view of the most relevant elasticities in play here, the most potentially helpful proposals in this space are President’s minimum tax on foreign earnings (a whack at tax havens) and an end to deferral (where foreign earnings can be endlessly held abroad).
Look, neither candidate should pretend to be against globalization. It’s deeply woven into the fabric of our economy and our lives and that’s not going to change. And if successful American companies want to expand abroad to sell more directly in those markets, good for them–they’re not displacing workers here. It’s especially silly for Romney to take a position against this, and even more so given that his position has nothing to do with the reality of the Jeep case.
But public policies should not increase the incentives to produce abroad. If anything, they should go the other way. Obama’s do, Romney’s do not.
by Jared Bernstein
One of the most deceptive jujitsu moves in modern campaign is known as swiftboating: trying to turn one of your opponent’s strengths into a weakness. Given the centrality of Ohio to electoral success less than a week from today (!), it should be no surprise that the Romney team choose that locale to go after the success of the President’s auto rescue.
Full disclosure: as a member of the President’s economics team I strongly advocated for the rescue, as per both my principal (the Vice-President) and the view held by myself and others that the employment costs would be particularly steep in communities that comprised the relevant supply chains. When you think about auto jobs, don’t just think about the factory at the end of the line where they assemble the cars and trucks. Think about all the small and medium size manufacturers that make those parts.
That’s where many of the new jobs in Ohio are coming from and it’s an important piece of evidence for the bailout’s success. Which makes it catnip for the Romney swiftboaters.
Dana Milbank takes this apart in this AM’s WaPo, but the gist is that Chrysler recently announced that they’d be expanding production of Jeeps—adding new plants—in China to help sell into that market. Note that they’re not talking about shifting US production overseas. They’re talking about tapping a trend that I’ve written about before here at OTE: producing closer to your target markets.
But in Romney-world, this became an attack on the President auto rescue because according to the campaign, Chrysler was planning to move all of their US production of Jeeps to China. Romney: “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”
Milbank prints the response from an aghast Chrysler exec:
Romney’s fiction was apparently based on a misreading of a Bloomberg News report a few days earlier, which said that Chrysler would resume production in China for the first time since parent Fiat SpA bought the company — in addition to Chrysler’s production in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.
“Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China,” Chrysler executive Gualberto Ranieri wrote in a statement, using italics for emphasis. “A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.” Ranieri said the conclusion that it was moving all production to China was “a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.”
But what’s particularly ridiculous here is that Romney is criticizing Chrysler’s global expansion. Since when do conservatives object to that? Is there anyone who believes for a nanosecond that expansion abroad by US multinational’s would be viewed critically by a Romney administration?
Back here in reality what we should be debating right about now is the relative positions of the candidates on policies that really matter to both auto production here and investment abroad. Gov. Romney opposed the government’s role in GM and Chrysler’s managed bankruptcy. Given the absence of private financing at the time, had he been in charge, these companies would have been facing liquidation. Instead, as the chart shows, the American auto industry has added 250,000 just since its turnaround (and not that this chart is a few months old; autos employment is up to 250K and sales are on track for 15 million this year).
Moreover, on international tax policy there are big, important differences that haven’t gotten enough emphasis so far. Gov. Romney’s plan is to allow multinationals to avoid paying any American taxes on their overseas earnings, a clear incentive to outsource, and one according to economist Kim Clausing would lead to 800,000 jobs shifted overseas.
Note the difference between this and the Jeep case. The Chrysler executive cited above explicitly denounced shifting production overseas. Clausing’s analysis, however, suggest that Romney “territorial” tax plan would incentivize precisely such shifts.
The President’s plan is to increase the tax incentives for producing here, not abroad. These include a lower corporate tax rate with benefits for manufacturers and for onshoring formerly offshored work, paid for in part by closing loopholes that currently make it cheaper to produce abroad. Given my view of the most relevant elasticities in play here, the most potentially helpful proposals in this space are President’s minimum tax on foreign earnings (a whack at tax havens) and an end to deferral (where foreign earnings can be endlessly held abroad).
Look, neither candidate should pretend to be against globalization. It’s deeply woven into the fabric of our economy and our lives and that’s not going to change. And if successful American companies want to expand abroad to sell more directly in those markets, good for them–they’re not displacing workers here. It’s especially silly for Romney to take a position against this, and even more so given that his position has nothing to do with the reality of the Jeep case.
But public policies should not increase the incentives to produce abroad. If anything, they should go the other way. Obama’s do, Romney’s do not.
Romney: Nevermind about eliminating FEMA
Clare Kim, @clarehkim
published on msnbc.com
In the wake of Sandy, Mitt Romney is backpedalling fast from his suggestion during a Republican primary debate that he wants to eliminate FEMA altogether.
Today, after avoiding reporters’ questions on the topic for several days, the candidate pledged his support for the federal agency, declaring in a statement released Wednesday morning:
With the devastating damage of Sandy still growing, Romney’s thoughts on FEMA have been in the public spotlight this week. On Monday, the campaign had sought to strike a middle-ground, saying Romney won’t cut FEMA’s budget but affirming that states should be in charge of emergency management when it comes to natural disasters.
But Paul Ryan has proposed a budget plan that would reduce federal discretionary spending which includes cuts in FEMA’s budget. Starting in 2014, nondefense discretionary funding would be cut by 22 percent. And an August CBPP report finds that about one-third of that money generally goes to state aid.
published on msnbc.com
In the wake of Sandy, Mitt Romney is backpedalling fast from his suggestion during a Republican primary debate that he wants to eliminate FEMA altogether.
Today, after avoiding reporters’ questions on the topic for several days, the candidate pledged his support for the federal agency, declaring in a statement released Wednesday morning:
“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said in a statement. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”Last year at a Republican primary debate, Romney seemed to propose eliminating FEMA, saying:
“Every time you have on occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget what we should cut, we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level, and say what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do, and those things we gotta stop doing.”
With the devastating damage of Sandy still growing, Romney’s thoughts on FEMA have been in the public spotlight this week. On Monday, the campaign had sought to strike a middle-ground, saying Romney won’t cut FEMA’s budget but affirming that states should be in charge of emergency management when it comes to natural disasters.
But Paul Ryan has proposed a budget plan that would reduce federal discretionary spending which includes cuts in FEMA’s budget. Starting in 2014, nondefense discretionary funding would be cut by 22 percent. And an August CBPP report finds that about one-third of that money generally goes to state aid.
WWII Veteran Fought To Cast His Last Vote
by SCOTT SIMON
This is the time of a long election season when voters can begin to feel weary. You can't watch the World Series without seeing ads so scolding and snarling you may want to shoo away your children. The ads can make voting seem like a nasty chore.
When 93-year-old Frank Tanabe of Honolulu moved into the home of his daughter, Barbara, earlier this year, he had liver cancer and knew he was going to die. But his family said he was determined to hold on long enough to vote.
Frank Tanabe grew up in Washington state. He was 22 years old and a college man when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American, he was sent to an internment camp.
He volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army's Military Intelligence Service, where he interrogated Japanese prisoners in India and China.
"I wanted to do my part to prove that I was not an enemy alien," he said years later in a documentary film. "And if we ever got the chance, we would do our best to serve our country. And we did."
Congress awarded the Congressional Gold Medal last year to all who served in the MIS and other Japanese-American units. Frank Tanabe was able to come to Washington, D.C., stand tall, and have the medal draped around his neck.
As his illness made inroads, his family said Frank Tanabe made living long enough to vote his last goal. He used a magnifying glass to read the newspaper each day and exercised in his bed.
Barbara Tanabe said, "I would let him know, 'Hey, the ballots are coming next week. Just hang in there.' "
Frank Tanabe's absentee ballot arrived last week, and Barbara said she hurried into his room to say, 'OK, I'm going to read you the names and you just nod yes or no.'"
She says the family did not all vote the same way.
"There were some that were OK, but there were others where I said, 'Dad, are you sure?' "
A family member posted a picture of Frank Tanabe, the staunch old soldier listening intently to the names on the ballot from his bed, and it went around the world.
He died this week, just as there were news reports that both presidential campaigns will raise $2 billion together and spend about $5 on each voter, trying to win support with ads and appeals. I wonder how many voters might have preferred to get a gallon and a half of gas or a sandwich.
But as Barbara Tanabe said this week of her father, "He saw people die fighting for their country. The foundation of our country is the ability to be able to vote and affect policies that change society."
Frank Tanabe once fought for Americans to have the right to vote. And he fought to live long enough to cast his own last ballot.
Listen to the Story
This is the time of a long election season when voters can begin to feel weary. You can't watch the World Series without seeing ads so scolding and snarling you may want to shoo away your children. The ads can make voting seem like a nasty chore.
When 93-year-old Frank Tanabe of Honolulu moved into the home of his daughter, Barbara, earlier this year, he had liver cancer and knew he was going to die. But his family said he was determined to hold on long enough to vote.
Frank Tanabe grew up in Washington state. He was 22 years old and a college man when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American, he was sent to an internment camp.
He volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army's Military Intelligence Service, where he interrogated Japanese prisoners in India and China.
"I wanted to do my part to prove that I was not an enemy alien," he said years later in a documentary film. "And if we ever got the chance, we would do our best to serve our country. And we did."
Congress awarded the Congressional Gold Medal last year to all who served in the MIS and other Japanese-American units. Frank Tanabe was able to come to Washington, D.C., stand tall, and have the medal draped around his neck.
As his illness made inroads, his family said Frank Tanabe made living long enough to vote his last goal. He used a magnifying glass to read the newspaper each day and exercised in his bed.
Barbara Tanabe said, "I would let him know, 'Hey, the ballots are coming next week. Just hang in there.' "
Frank Tanabe's absentee ballot arrived last week, and Barbara said she hurried into his room to say, 'OK, I'm going to read you the names and you just nod yes or no.'"
She says the family did not all vote the same way.
"There were some that were OK, but there were others where I said, 'Dad, are you sure?' "
A family member posted a picture of Frank Tanabe, the staunch old soldier listening intently to the names on the ballot from his bed, and it went around the world.
He died this week, just as there were news reports that both presidential campaigns will raise $2 billion together and spend about $5 on each voter, trying to win support with ads and appeals. I wonder how many voters might have preferred to get a gallon and a half of gas or a sandwich.
But as Barbara Tanabe said this week of her father, "He saw people die fighting for their country. The foundation of our country is the ability to be able to vote and affect policies that change society."
Frank Tanabe once fought for Americans to have the right to vote. And he fought to live long enough to cast his own last ballot.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Political Odd Couple: Jersey Shore Edition
by Padmananda Rama
Published on NPR
The Tuesday before Election Day was not a day for presidential politics, at least not for Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Hours after Superstorm Sandy savagely hit his state, the man who gave the keynote address at the Republican National Convention that nominated Mitt Romney appeared on morning television shows praising President Obama.
Christie, in his Aug. 28 convention speech, declared it time to end Obama's "absentee leadership in the Oval Office and send real leaders to the White House."
Two months later, none of that rhetoric was on display.
"He has been very attentive and anything that I've asked for he's gotten to me, so I thank the president publicly," Christie told Fox and Friends. "He has done, as far as I'm concerned, a great job for New Jersey."
On Wednesday, Obama and Christie will tour damage in the Garden State. When asked by Fox and Friends if he expected Romney to visit, Christie said:
"I have no idea nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I've got a job here to do in New Jersey that's much bigger than presidential politics, and I could care less about any of that stuff. ... If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don't know me."
On CBS's This Morning, Christie called the federal government's cooperation with his state "excellent," adding that he "can't thank the president enough" for his handling of the storm.
The New York Times' Michael D. Shear wrote:
On Tuesday afternoon, Obama praised Christie, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (a Republican, an independent and a Democrat, for what it's worth) while speaking at a Red Cross center in Washington, D.C.
"I want to praise them for the extraordinary work that they have done," Obama said. "The preparation shows. Were it not for the outstanding work that they and their teams have already done and will continue to do in the affected regions, we could have seen more deaths and more property damage. So, they have done extraordinary work."
The president also described the coordination efforts between federal, state and local officials as "outstanding," saying he's given "no red tape" instructions to federal agencies.
Published on NPR
The Tuesday before Election Day was not a day for presidential politics, at least not for Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Hours after Superstorm Sandy savagely hit his state, the man who gave the keynote address at the Republican National Convention that nominated Mitt Romney appeared on morning television shows praising President Obama.
Christie, in his Aug. 28 convention speech, declared it time to end Obama's "absentee leadership in the Oval Office and send real leaders to the White House."
Two months later, none of that rhetoric was on display.
"He has been very attentive and anything that I've asked for he's gotten to me, so I thank the president publicly," Christie told Fox and Friends. "He has done, as far as I'm concerned, a great job for New Jersey."
On Wednesday, Obama and Christie will tour damage in the Garden State. When asked by Fox and Friends if he expected Romney to visit, Christie said:
"I have no idea nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I've got a job here to do in New Jersey that's much bigger than presidential politics, and I could care less about any of that stuff. ... If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don't know me."
On CBS's This Morning, Christie called the federal government's cooperation with his state "excellent," adding that he "can't thank the president enough" for his handling of the storm.
The New York Times' Michael D. Shear wrote:
"But some Republicans have already begun grumbling about Mr. Christie's over-the-top praise of the president at such a crucial time in the election. One Republican in Washington said Mr. Christie could have simply expressed appreciation for what any president would have done. Another Republican strategist observed that Mr. Christie's kind words for the president were delivered with the kind of gusto that he often uses to criticize Mr. Obama."
On Tuesday afternoon, Obama praised Christie, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (a Republican, an independent and a Democrat, for what it's worth) while speaking at a Red Cross center in Washington, D.C.
"I want to praise them for the extraordinary work that they have done," Obama said. "The preparation shows. Were it not for the outstanding work that they and their teams have already done and will continue to do in the affected regions, we could have seen more deaths and more property damage. So, they have done extraordinary work."
The president also described the coordination efforts between federal, state and local officials as "outstanding," saying he's given "no red tape" instructions to federal agencies.
President Obama at Red Cross (Video/Transcrip)
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I want to thank Gail and Charlie who are on the scene doing work every time we have a disaster here in the United States of America. But obviously, the Red Cross is doing outstanding work internationally, so we want to thank them for their outstanding work.
A few things that I want to emphasize to the public at the top. This storm is not yet over. We’ve gotten briefings from the National Hurricane Center. It is still moving north. There are still communities that could be affected. And so I want to emphasize there are still risks of flooding, there are still risks of down power lines, risks of high winds. And so it is very important for the public to continue to monitor the situation in your local community, listen to your state and local officials, follow instructions. The more you follow instructions, the easier it is for our first responders to make sure that they are dealing with true emergency situations. So the better prepared individual families are for the situation, the easier it is going to be for us to deal with it.
Next, obviously, I want to talk about the extraordinary hardship that we’ve seen over the last 48 hours. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all the families who have lost loved ones. Unfortunately, there have been fatalities as a consequence of Hurricane Sandy, and it’s not clear that we’ve counted up all the fatalities at this point. And obviously, this is something that is heartbreaking for the entire nation. And we certainly feel profoundly for all the families whose lives have been upended and are going to be going through some very tough times over the next several days and perhaps several weeks and months.
The most important message I have for them is that America is with you. We are standing behind you, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get back on your feet.
Earlier today I had a conversation with the governors and many of the mayors in the affected areas, including Governor Christie, Governor Cuomo, and Mayor Bloomberg. I want to praise them for the extraordinary work that they have done. Sadly, we are getting more experience with these kinds of big impact storms along the East Coast, and the preparation shows. Were it not for the outstanding work that they and their teams have already done and will continue to do in the affected regions, we could have seen more deaths and more property damage. So they have done extraordinary work working around the clock. The coordination between the state, local, and federal governments has been outstanding.
Obviously, we’re now moving into the recovery phase in a lot of the most severely affected areas. New Jersey, New York in particular have been pounded by this storm. Connecticut has taken a big hit. Because of some of the work that had been done ahead of time, we’ve been able to get over a thousand FEMA officials in place, pre-positioned. We’ve been able to get supplies, food, medicine, water, emergency generators to ensure that hospitals and law enforcement offices are able to stay up and running as they are out there responding.
We are going to continue to push as hard as we can to make sure that power is up throughout the region. And obviously, this is mostly a local responsibility, and the private utilities are going to have to lean forward, but we are doing everything we can to provide them additional resources so that we can expedite getting power up and running in many of these communities.
There are places like Newark, New Jersey, for example, where you’ve got 80, 90 percent of the people without power. We can't have a situation where that lasts for days on end. And so my instructions to the federal agency has been, do not figure out why we can't do something; I want you to figure out how we do something. I want you to cut through red tape. I want you to cut through bureaucracy. There’s no excuse for inaction at this point. I want every agency to lean forward and to make sure that we are getting the resources where they need -- where they're needed as quickly as possible.
So I want to repeat -- my message to the federal government: No bureaucracy, no red tape. Get resources where they're needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible, and for the duration, because the recovery process obviously in a place like New Jersey is going to take a significant amount of time. The recovery process in a lower Manhattan is going to take a lot of time.
And part of what we’re trying to do here is also to see where are some resources that can be brought to bear that maybe traditionally are not used in these kind of disaster situations. For example, there may be military assets that allow us to help move equipment to ensure that pumping and getting the flooding out of New York subway systems can proceed more quickly. There may be resources that we can bring to bear to help some of the private utilities get their personnel and their equipment in place more swiftly so that we can get power up and running as soon as possible.
So my message to the governors and the mayors and, through them, to the communities that have been hit so hard is that we are going to do everything we can to get resources to you and make sure that any unmet need that is identified, we are responding to it as quickly as possible. And I told the mayors and the governors if they're getting no for an answer somewhere in the federal government, they can call me personally at the White House.
Now, obviously, the state, local, federal response is important, but what we do as a community, what we do as neighbors and as fellow citizens is equally important. So a couple of things that I want the public to know they can do.
First of all, because our local law enforcement, our first responders are being swamped, to the extent that everybody can be out there looking out for their neighbors, especially older folks, I think that's really important. If you’ve got a neighbor nearby, you’re not sure how they're handling a power outage, flooding, et cetera, go over, visit them, knock on their door, make sure that they're doing okay. That can make a big difference. The public can be the eyes and ears in terms of identifying unmet needs.
Second thing, the reason we’re here is because the Red Cross knows what it’s doing when it comes to emergency response. And so for people all across the country who have not been affected, now is the time to show the kind of generosity that makes America the greatest nation on Earth. And a good place to express that generosity is by contributing to the Red Cross.
Obviously, you can go on their website. The Red Cross knows what they're doing. They're in close contact with federal, state, and local officials. They will make sure that we get the resources to those families as swiftly as possible. And again, I want to thank everybody here who is doing such a great job when it comes to the disaster response.
The final message I’d just say is during the darkness of the storm, I think we also saw what’s brightest in America. I think all of us obviously have been shocked by the force of Mother Nature as we watch it on television. At the same time, we’ve also seen nurses at NYU Hospital carrying fragile newborns to safety. We’ve seen incredibly brave firefighters in Queens, waist-deep in water, battling infernos and rescuing people in boats.
One of my favorite stories is down in North Carolina, the Coast Guard going out to save a sinking ship. They sent a rescue swimmer out, and the rescue swimmer said, “Hi, I’m Dan. I understand you guys need a ride.” That kind of spirit of resilience and strength, but most importantly looking out for one another, that's why we always bounce back from these kinds of disasters.
This is a tough time for a lot of people -- millions of folks all across the Eastern Seaboard. But America is tougher, and we’re tougher because we pull together. We leave nobody behind. We make sure that we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of us stand together to make sure that we’re providing the help that's necessary.
So I just want to thank the incredible response that we’ve already seen, but I do want to remind people this is going to take some time. It is not going to be easy for a lot of these communities to recovery swiftly, and so it’s going to be important that we sustain that spirit of resilience, that we continue to be good neighbors for the duration until everybody is back on their feet.
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Red Cross. (Applause.)
Another Mother Jones' New Romney Tape
On Monday, Mother Jones' DC bureau chief David Corn revealed a new Romney tape, in which Mitt says Obama regards businesspeople as "a necessary evil," and Ann Romney implies Obama isn't a "grown up." Corn joins MSNBC's PoliticsNation host Al Sharpton, and Maria Teresa Kumar, executive director of Voto Latino, to discuss the latest malarky.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.
Visit NBCNews.com
Does anyone have a grip on who Romney is? (Video/Transcript)
Let me finish tonight with what Susan Eisenhower just asked: Do you—does anyone?—have a grip on who Mitt Romney is?
Really?
Is he the moderate, pro-choice candidate for governor of Massachusetts, the guy who gave us the model for Obamacare?
Or is he the right-wing guy who hangs with the hawks, talks cozily of war, signs on with Grover Norquist, joins with the religious right?
Is he Dr. Jekyll? Or Mr. Hyde?
Or is he both?Or neither?
Jack Kennedy once said he felt sorry for his rival Richard Nixon because he “doesn’t know who he is and at each stop has to decide which Nixon he is at the moment.”
Want to hear a worse case?
Do you really think that this guy who will service the right-wing so sweetly will suddenly have the force of will to betray it? Have you seen a single case when Romney’s broken free from the mob that’s brought him this far? A single “Sister Soulja” moment when he’s said to the Trumps, the Sununus, the “birthers” and Norquists and Neo-Cons, “No, this time you ask too much.”
No. All the evidence is that Romney will remain Romney—pliable, bendable, usable to the same crowd that took Dubya, used him, and dumped him in history’s hamper.
Monday, October 29, 2012
What a Romney administration could do to FEMA?
Clare Kim, @clarehkim
Posted on msnbc
As the East Coast prepares for Hurricane Sandy only eight days before Election Day, voters might be wondering how a President Romney would manage a similar situation.
Romney and Paul Ryan have cancelled their campaign events scheduled for Monday night and Tuesday “out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy,” But at a Republican primary debate last June, he seemed to propose shutting down FEMA, the federal disaster management agency that’s spearheading the government’s response to the storm.
During the CNN primary debate, Romney was asked about the role of the federal government. He answered:
As the East Coast prepares for Hurricane Sandy only eight days before Election Day, voters might be wondering how a President Romney would manage a similar situation. Romney and Paul Ryan have cancelled their campaign events scheduled for Monday night and Tuesday “out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy,” But at a Republican primary debate last June, he seemed to propose shutting down FEMA, the federal disaster management agency that’s spearheading the government’s response to the storm. During the CNN primary debate, Romney was asked about the role of the federal government. He answered: “Every time you have on occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget what we should cut, we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level, and say what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do, and those things we gotta stop doing.”
Moderator John King followed up, asking what Romney would do about disaster relief specifically, and the candidate responded that,
But there’s also the issue of how a Romney budget would treat FEMA, especially given the looming sequester. MSNBC policy analyst Ezra Klein points out that if the sequester were to take effect, FEMA would “lose about $878 million, largely from programs that provide direct relief to disaster victims. And even if Congress averts the sequester cuts, it has already put hard new limits on disaster relief into effect, thanks to the debt-ceiling deal.”
President Obama has pledged that the sequester won’t happen.
Posted on msnbc
As the East Coast prepares for Hurricane Sandy only eight days before Election Day, voters might be wondering how a President Romney would manage a similar situation.
Romney and Paul Ryan have cancelled their campaign events scheduled for Monday night and Tuesday “out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy,” But at a Republican primary debate last June, he seemed to propose shutting down FEMA, the federal disaster management agency that’s spearheading the government’s response to the storm.
During the CNN primary debate, Romney was asked about the role of the federal government. He answered:
As the East Coast prepares for Hurricane Sandy only eight days before Election Day, voters might be wondering how a President Romney would manage a similar situation. Romney and Paul Ryan have cancelled their campaign events scheduled for Monday night and Tuesday “out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy,” But at a Republican primary debate last June, he seemed to propose shutting down FEMA, the federal disaster management agency that’s spearheading the government’s response to the storm. During the CNN primary debate, Romney was asked about the role of the federal government. He answered: “Every time you have on occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget what we should cut, we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level, and say what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do, and those things we gotta stop doing.”
Moderator John King followed up, asking what Romney would do about disaster relief specifically, and the candidate responded that,
“We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.”These days, as on so many issues, Romney is singing a different tune. His campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote in an email Monday to National Journal:
Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions. As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.
But there’s also the issue of how a Romney budget would treat FEMA, especially given the looming sequester. MSNBC policy analyst Ezra Klein points out that if the sequester were to take effect, FEMA would “lose about $878 million, largely from programs that provide direct relief to disaster victims. And even if Congress averts the sequester cuts, it has already put hard new limits on disaster relief into effect, thanks to the debt-ceiling deal.”
President Obama has pledged that the sequester won’t happen.
US democracy: The power of money
Just how much does money distort the political process?
You should really watch this video to gain a better understanding how money buys your vote!Aljazeera noticed:
The US presidential elections in November 2012 are expected to become the most expensive in history. One estimate by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) goes as high as $11bn.
The vast majority of this political money has come from a handful of super-rich supporters of the Republican Party dwarfing the attempts by citizens, associations or labor unions to do the same.
Many on the right claim deregulating campaign financing as a victory for free speech whilst most on the left fear the changes are corrupting democracy.
Controversial campaign funding rule changes brought in after a Supreme Court ruling in 2010 have opened the floodgates to billionaire donors with the potential to buy influence all the way to the White House.
The Citizens United ruling means that anyone can support a candidate with unlimited funding through the use of groups known as Super PACs (Political Action Committees) and some donors can keep their identity and the source of their money secret through similar organisations which have earned them the nickname 'Dark Money' groups.
The new system is rarely challenged in the mainstream media. Broadcasters benefit from all the spending on political advertising and news journalists use the adverts as a big source for their election stories.
But more fundamentally, in a free market society where the richest 400 people have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, Empire asks if money transforms or distorts the whole political process. What happens on the morning after when the lobbyists catch up with the politicians to push their interests? And who is challenging this system when the media benefits from all the spending on political advertising?
Joining us as interviewees: Senator Richard Lugar, the long-serving and outgoing Republican Indiana senator; and James Bopp Jr, the lawyer whose work has been immensely successful in deregulating campaign finance and who was instrumental in winning the landmark Citizens United case.
And we debate the larger issues of money and power in American politics with our guests: Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Steven Hoersting, the co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics, an attorney who is regarded as an architect of the Super PAC system; Clyde Wilcox, a professor of government at Georgetown University and the author of more than 30 books, including Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering; and Larry Beinhart, a novelist and author of the critically acclaimed novel American Hero, which was adapted into the film Wag the Dog.
The Democratic Argument for Compulsory Vot
By Simon Liem
© 2012 Harper’s Magazine
© 2012 Harper’s Magazine
In an essay selected for the Readings section of our October issue, Victoria Bassetti writes about the lack of constitutional protection for voting—an important issue right now, as some states have passed voter-identification laws that civil-rights groups believe could discourage millions of people from voting in the upcoming general election. Since 2003, Republican lawmakers in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and a handful of other states have passed laws that require voters to present photo identification at polling stations to cast a ballot, with the stated aim of preventing voter-impersonation fraud, and the actual aim of placing obstacles to voting in front of poor people and minorities, who happen to traditionally support Democrats.
Even without such efforts, turnout will be abysmally low, as it always is. Presidential-election voting peaked in the twentieth century in 1960, when nearly two-thirds of eligible voters came out to the polls, and reached its nadir in 1996, when just over half did. The most recent two presidential elections were better, with each turning out over 60 percent, but the most recent midterm elections managed only 40. Given that it has become a struggle to get half of Americans to the polls, it’s quite incredible that anyone would do anything to discourage voting.
This has become a particular problem for Democrats, who, if they were wise, would be targeting nonvoters with more than just get-out-the-vote drives. In August, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll showed that unregistered voters, if they had to choose, would pick Obama over Romney at a rate of nearly two to one, while registered voters who said they weren’t sure if they would cast a ballot also heavily favored Obama. The pool of 90 to 95 million nonvoters represent a significant missed opportunity for Democrats, one they might someday capitalize on by pushing to aggressively reform voting laws around the country, a strategic goal that happens to coincide with increased participation in the democratic process. Allowing same-day registration and a variety of acceptable identifications at the voting booths helped Minnesota achieve the highest turnout of any state in the 2008 presidential election, at 77 percent, while Democrats in California have passed laws that allow for online registration in the upcoming election, resulting in promising early numbers. But to really push people to the polls would require much more.
The most obvious and effective reform would be a compulsory voting system. While such a move would invoke the rage of tea partiers and those who see compulsory anything as inimical to the American notion of freedom, the concept isn’t foreign to U.S. politics. In the seventeenth century, several American colonies required eligible voters to participate in elections. (In Virginia, the fine for not voting was at one point two hundred pounds of tobacco, while Georgia wrote into its first constitution a fine of five pounds for anyone who absented himself from an election without valid reason.) More recently, many delegates to Massachusetts 1917 constitutional convention supported amending the state’s constitution to permit compulsory voting. Turnout had been backsliding in the United States from its highest historic participation rates in the late nineteenth century, and was heading for its all-time low in the 1920 presidential elections. One of the Massachusetts delegates argued that “when these men find it obligatory on them to go and vote they are going to give this question thought, and they will study it over, and they will talk it over in the market-places and in the grocery stores and with the folks at home, and the result is they get more light and are better able to vote.” Another complained that 28 percent of registered voters had not voted in state elections that year, and that primaries regularly drew less than one-quarter of voters—turnouts that would be nothing short of miraculous today. The trends were troubling enough for drafters of the constitution to add the amendment permitting the government to require voting, though no law has yet been passed to test it.
Other countries have shown that mandatory voting works. In 1924, Australia legislated a mandatory-voting system after its turnout dipped below 60 percent in its most recent federal elections. Its next ones, in 1925, saw the participation rate rise to 91 percent; and it has never dipped below that figure since. Opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Australians support obligatory voting. Similar systems in Italy and Belgium, which has had a compulsory vote since the nineteenth century, regularly produce turnouts of over 90 percent. Notably, the few who do refuse to vote in these countries face relatively mild punishments. Nonvoting Australians are fined up to about $50. Nonvoting Italians can encounter a few extra bureaucratic hurdles when trying to register for state services.
It would be in the Democrats’ interest to push in that direction—and at relatively low cost, as reform would first have to happen slowly on a state level, where, if other systems are any example, the success and popularity of compulsory voting would serve as a model that could spread through the country. The biggest challenges would most likely be legal ones—because, as Bassetti points out, the lack of a federal constitutional right to vote makes standards flexible and essentially subject to the whims of state courts.
Of course, Democrats legislating voters to the polls strictly for their benefit would be no less cynical than Republican voter-registration efforts, nor earlier efforts to remove property requirements, for example, to ensure that more white men could vote, thus preserving slavery. But a compulsory vote would represent the expansion of electoral engagement; the Democrats would potentially reap political gain while advocating for a just and proven form of democratic process. That they aren’t taking the initiative is their own loss.
Even without such efforts, turnout will be abysmally low, as it always is. Presidential-election voting peaked in the twentieth century in 1960, when nearly two-thirds of eligible voters came out to the polls, and reached its nadir in 1996, when just over half did. The most recent two presidential elections were better, with each turning out over 60 percent, but the most recent midterm elections managed only 40. Given that it has become a struggle to get half of Americans to the polls, it’s quite incredible that anyone would do anything to discourage voting.
This has become a particular problem for Democrats, who, if they were wise, would be targeting nonvoters with more than just get-out-the-vote drives. In August, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll showed that unregistered voters, if they had to choose, would pick Obama over Romney at a rate of nearly two to one, while registered voters who said they weren’t sure if they would cast a ballot also heavily favored Obama. The pool of 90 to 95 million nonvoters represent a significant missed opportunity for Democrats, one they might someday capitalize on by pushing to aggressively reform voting laws around the country, a strategic goal that happens to coincide with increased participation in the democratic process. Allowing same-day registration and a variety of acceptable identifications at the voting booths helped Minnesota achieve the highest turnout of any state in the 2008 presidential election, at 77 percent, while Democrats in California have passed laws that allow for online registration in the upcoming election, resulting in promising early numbers. But to really push people to the polls would require much more.
The most obvious and effective reform would be a compulsory voting system. While such a move would invoke the rage of tea partiers and those who see compulsory anything as inimical to the American notion of freedom, the concept isn’t foreign to U.S. politics. In the seventeenth century, several American colonies required eligible voters to participate in elections. (In Virginia, the fine for not voting was at one point two hundred pounds of tobacco, while Georgia wrote into its first constitution a fine of five pounds for anyone who absented himself from an election without valid reason.) More recently, many delegates to Massachusetts 1917 constitutional convention supported amending the state’s constitution to permit compulsory voting. Turnout had been backsliding in the United States from its highest historic participation rates in the late nineteenth century, and was heading for its all-time low in the 1920 presidential elections. One of the Massachusetts delegates argued that “when these men find it obligatory on them to go and vote they are going to give this question thought, and they will study it over, and they will talk it over in the market-places and in the grocery stores and with the folks at home, and the result is they get more light and are better able to vote.” Another complained that 28 percent of registered voters had not voted in state elections that year, and that primaries regularly drew less than one-quarter of voters—turnouts that would be nothing short of miraculous today. The trends were troubling enough for drafters of the constitution to add the amendment permitting the government to require voting, though no law has yet been passed to test it.
Other countries have shown that mandatory voting works. In 1924, Australia legislated a mandatory-voting system after its turnout dipped below 60 percent in its most recent federal elections. Its next ones, in 1925, saw the participation rate rise to 91 percent; and it has never dipped below that figure since. Opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Australians support obligatory voting. Similar systems in Italy and Belgium, which has had a compulsory vote since the nineteenth century, regularly produce turnouts of over 90 percent. Notably, the few who do refuse to vote in these countries face relatively mild punishments. Nonvoting Australians are fined up to about $50. Nonvoting Italians can encounter a few extra bureaucratic hurdles when trying to register for state services.
It would be in the Democrats’ interest to push in that direction—and at relatively low cost, as reform would first have to happen slowly on a state level, where, if other systems are any example, the success and popularity of compulsory voting would serve as a model that could spread through the country. The biggest challenges would most likely be legal ones—because, as Bassetti points out, the lack of a federal constitutional right to vote makes standards flexible and essentially subject to the whims of state courts.
Of course, Democrats legislating voters to the polls strictly for their benefit would be no less cynical than Republican voter-registration efforts, nor earlier efforts to remove property requirements, for example, to ensure that more white men could vote, thus preserving slavery. But a compulsory vote would represent the expansion of electoral engagement; the Democrats would potentially reap political gain while advocating for a just and proven form of democratic process. That they aren’t taking the initiative is their own loss.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Republicans are trying to block legitimate voters from casting ballots
One of the more controversial aspects of the 2012 election campaign has been a series of new laws that make it harder for some people to vote.
In the past two years, more than a dozen states across the US have passed laws that could restrict voting. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to block legitimate voters from casting ballots. But Republicans claim that they are trying to stop fraud.
Al Jazeera's John Hendren reports from Ohio:
In the past two years, more than a dozen states across the US have passed laws that could restrict voting. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to block legitimate voters from casting ballots. But Republicans claim that they are trying to stop fraud.
Al Jazeera's John Hendren reports from Ohio:
Who is the safe choice, Barak Obama or Mitt Romney?
President Barak Obama had been consistent and done his best to safe the economy with so many lives throughout the United States on the line.
Mitt Romney on the other has been claiming that President Barak Obama has not kept his promise.
Well, President Barak Obama made this promises when no one knew what would happen in 2008. Nobody expected the economy fall off the cliff due to the failure of oversight during the George W. Bush Presidency.
However, Mitt Romney has not only broken promises but flat out lied to the people.
The latest lie was the claimed that the car company Jeep would move to China and when Jeep was asked by journalists, Jeep declared this a big lie.
Mitt Romney has said he will be the President of all Americans but behind closed doors he states that he doesn’t care about 47% of Americans who get any kind of Government assistants.
Mitt Romney claims he could get the government working again like he had in his state of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts he didn’t have a choice because he was governing with a democratic controlled congress. He just went along to pave the past to become President in 2012.
I think once Mitt Romney is elected he will become another George W. Bush and do whatever the Republican Party wants him to do. Remember George W. Bush was portrait as a centrist Republican and turned out to be one of the most conservative and war-hungry President. So watch out what you wish for, you may get it but not in the way you think or had promised.
I think President Barak Obama is a safe choice.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and
President Barack Obama Weekly Address October 27, 2012 (Video/Transcript)
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
October 27, 2012
Hi, everybody. It’s now been four years since a crisis that began on Wall Street spread to Main Street, hammering middle-class families and ultimately costing our economy 9 million jobs.Weekly Address
The White House
October 27, 2012
Since then, we’ve fought our way back. Our businesses have added more than 5 million new jobs. The unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level since I took office. Home values are rising again. And our assembly lines are humming once more.
And to make sure America never goes through a crisis like that again, we passed tough new Wall Street reform to end taxpayer-funded bailouts for good.
Wall Street reform also created the first-ever independent consumer watchdog, whose sole job is to look out for you.
That means making sure you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions like buying a home or paying for college. And it means going after anyone who tries to take advantage of you, or rip you off.
Starting this month, that includes the folks who come up with your credit score.
If you haven’t checked out your credit score recently, you should. It can have a major impact on your life. It can determine whether or not you qualify for a loan or what kind of interest you have to pay. It can even affect your chances at renting an apartment or getting a job.
But here’s the thing: the companies that put your credit score together can make mistakes. They may think you had a loan or a credit card that was never yours. They may think you were late making payments when you were on time. And when they mess up, you’re the one who suffers.
Until this week, if you had a complaint, you took it to the company. Sometimes they listened. Sometimes they didn’t. But that was pretty much it. They were your only real hope.
Not anymore. If you have a complaint about your credit score that hasn’t been properly addressed, you can go to consumerfinance.gov/complaint and let the consumer watchdog know.
Not only will they bring your complaint directly to the company in question, they’ll give you a tracking number, so you can check back and see exactly what’s being done on your behalf.
And fixing your credit score isn’t the only thing they can help with.
If you’re opening a bank account, trying to get a student loan, or applying for a credit card and something doesn’t seem right, you can let them know and they’ll check it out.
If you’re looking to buy a home, and you want to know if you’re getting a fair deal on your mortgage, you can give them a call and they’ll get you an answer.
Their only mission is to fight for you. And when needed, they’ll take action.
For example, alongside other regulators, they recently ordered three big credit card companies to return more than $400 million to folks who were deceived or misled into buying things they didn’t want or didn’t understand.
That’s what Wall Street reform is all about – looking out for working families and making sure that everyone is playing by the same rules.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been enough to stop Republicans in Congress from fighting these reforms. Backed by an army of financial industry lobbyists, they’ve been waging an all-out battle to delay, defund and dismantle these new rules.
I refuse to let that happen.
I believe that the free market is one of the greatest forces for progress in human history, and that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not the government.
But I also believe that the free market has never been about taking whatever you want, however you can get it. Alongside our innovative spirit, America only prospers when we meet certain obligations to one another, and when we all play by the same set of rules.
We’ve come too far – and sacrificed too much – to go back to an era of top-down, on-your-own economics. And as long as I’m President, we’re going to keep moving this country forward so that everyone – whether you start a business or punch a clock – can have confidence that if you work hard, you can get ahead.
Thanks and have a great weekend.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Romney-Ryan's Real Poverty Plan: Soak the Poor
—By Kevin Drum
posted on Mother Jones
So what would Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan do for the poor and the working class if they were elected? Let's recap:
- They would allow the payroll tax holiday to expire. This would immediately raise taxes on everyone, and would hit the working poor especially hard.
- They would repeal Obamacare, which would immediately kick about 17 million low-income earners and their family members off of Medicaid.
- In addition, they want to block grant Medicaid and cap its growth. In some states, this wouldn't have a big immediate impact. In other states, conservative governors and legislatures would use their newfound authority to limit enrollments and cut benefits substantially. Over time, all states would have to cut enrollments dramatically, probably by another 15-20 million within a decade.
- If they pursue the cuts outlined in Paul Ryan's budget plan, they would cut funding for SNAP (food stamps) by more than $100 billion over the next decade. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this would reduce enrollment in the program by at least 8 million people.
- They would cut funding for Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health organizations. This would especially hurt poor women, since they don't have the resources to pay for services at full-cost clinics.
- They would cut the college tax credit, the child tax credit, and the earned-income tax credit. All of these are programs designed to help the working poor.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Be a critical thinker
We all should apply one timeless and universal mental process, critical thinking!
Critical thinking means to be reasonable, which is a reflective thinking that aims at deciding what to believe or what to do.
Through critical thinking we are able to decide whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.
Critical thinking is the most important component of our life.
Always be a critical thinker.
Never believe all the things you read, see or hear.
Critical thinking means to be reasonable, which is a reflective thinking that aims at deciding what to believe or what to do.
Through critical thinking we are able to decide whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.
Critical thinking is the most important component of our life.
Always be a critical thinker.
Never believe all the things you read, see or hear.
Barack Obama: Determination (Video/Transcript)
Transcript:
Obama: There's just no quit in America, and you're seeing that right now. Over 5 million new jobs, exports up 41%, home values rising, our auto industry back and our heroes are coming home. We're not there yet, but we've made real progress. And the last thing we should do is turn back now. Here's my plan for the next four years: making education and training a national priority; building on our manufacturing boom; boosting American-made energy; reducing the deficits responsibly by cutting where we can, and asking the wealthy to pay a little more. And ending the war in Afghanistan, so we can do some nation-building here at home. That's the right path. So read my plan, compare it to Governor Romney's and decide which is better for you. It's an honor to be your president, and I'm asking for your vote. So together we can keep moving America forward
Republican Richard Mourdock: I gained votes after rape remarks
Reported by the Guardian News
The Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said on Thursday that he had gained voters as a result of his claim that pregnancies from rape are "something that God intended to happen".
The GOP candidate from Indiana was criticised by Republicans and Democrats after he made the comments during a debate on Tuesday. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has become embroiled in the row after refusing to withdraw his support for Mourdock. President Obama said Mourdock's remarks were "demeaning to women".
But Mourdock said on Thursday that his popularity had been unaffected by the fallout. Asked about voters who might not vote for him because of the remarks, Mourdock said: "I haven't heard of those voters," the Indianapolis Star reported.
When Mourdock was given an example of one voter who had, in fact, stopped supporting him, he said: "I assured all women that the issue of rape is a serious issue. It is not one that my God condones. If anyone thinks that I would condone that, that's a ludicrous point of view."
Asked if his campaign had gained votes after the abortion comment, the Star said Mourdock replied: "I know we did."
Mourdock's assertion may come as surprise within his own party. The Senate candidate was the subject of headlines for the second day in a row on Thursday, with criticism coming from prominent Republicans as well as the president.
Haley Barbour, the Republican former governor of Mississippi, told CBS's This Morning that Mourdock's remarks were "kinda crazy" and said he did not support Mourdock's statements on rape.
"I don't agree with what he said. I thought that what he said was kinda crazy," Barbour said. The former governor tried to play down the impact on the presidential race, saying that outside Mourdock's state people are "not talking about what someone who's secretary of state in Indiana said".
Even if Mourdock's comments – the latest in a series of missteps by Republicans over issues of rape and abortion – do not adversely affect his campaign, his notoriety could have an impact on Romney's popularity among women, which polls show has improved over the last month.
The latest AP/GfK poll found that Romney has eroded Obama's substantial lead among women – an issue which has been seen as key to deciding the election. The poll showed Romney dead even with Obama on 47%, having been 16 points behind the president with women voters just a month before.
The poll was largely conducted before Mourdock made his remarks, however, and Romney's reluctance to withdraw support from the Indianan is unlikely to be popular. In a debate on Tuesday, Mourdock said he was opposed to abortion even when a woman had been raped, saying "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen".
In a press conference on Wednesday, Mourdock said he stood by his comments, apologising only for people misinterpreting them.
Obama sought to draw attention to the comments on Wednesday, saying the statement was "demeaning to women". Asked about Mourdock's comment on The Tonight Show, Obama told host Jay Leno: "Rape is rape. It is a crime."
The president continued the theme on Thursday, telling a crowd of supporters in Florida: "I don't think politicians in Washington, most of whom are male, should be making healthcare decisions for women."
Romney refused to answer questions from reporters about Mourdock on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said that Romney "disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr Mourdock's comments do not reflect Governor Romney's views". However, she added: "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him."
There was some good news for Mourdock, however, as John McCain, who beat Romney to the Republican nomination for president in 2008, said he still supported Mourdock. McCain had appeared to waver when interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday. Asked if he still supported Mourdock, McCain said "it depends on what he does".
"If he apologises, says he misspoke and he was wrong, and he asks the people to forgive him then obviously I'd be the first [to forgive Mourdock]," he said.
On Thursday a spokesman for McCain issued a statement saying the 2008 presidential candidate hoped Mourdock would be elected to the Senate.
"Senator McCain was traveling yesterday in Florida and did not have an opportunity to see Mr Mourdock's full press conference before he taped his CNN interview," the statement said. "Senator McCain is glad that Mr Mourdock apologised to the people of Indiana and clarified his previous statement."
Mourdock has also been backed by the national Republican senatorial committee, although the New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte dropped plans to campaign with Mourdock, a spokesman saying she disagreed with his comments.
Mourdock is not the first Republican to find himself in hot water over beliefs related to abortion. In August, Todd Akin, a Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, said that pregnancy as a result of "legitimate rape" is rare as "the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down".
Just last week, Republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois told reporters "you can't find one instance" where it had been necessary to perform an abortion due to the risk to the mother's life, due to medical advances. Medical experts note that there are some cases where the only option in the case of complications sustained during pregnancy is to abort the foetus.
The Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said on Thursday that he had gained voters as a result of his claim that pregnancies from rape are "something that God intended to happen".
The GOP candidate from Indiana was criticised by Republicans and Democrats after he made the comments during a debate on Tuesday. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has become embroiled in the row after refusing to withdraw his support for Mourdock. President Obama said Mourdock's remarks were "demeaning to women".
But Mourdock said on Thursday that his popularity had been unaffected by the fallout. Asked about voters who might not vote for him because of the remarks, Mourdock said: "I haven't heard of those voters," the Indianapolis Star reported.
When Mourdock was given an example of one voter who had, in fact, stopped supporting him, he said: "I assured all women that the issue of rape is a serious issue. It is not one that my God condones. If anyone thinks that I would condone that, that's a ludicrous point of view."
Asked if his campaign had gained votes after the abortion comment, the Star said Mourdock replied: "I know we did."
Mourdock's assertion may come as surprise within his own party. The Senate candidate was the subject of headlines for the second day in a row on Thursday, with criticism coming from prominent Republicans as well as the president.
Haley Barbour, the Republican former governor of Mississippi, told CBS's This Morning that Mourdock's remarks were "kinda crazy" and said he did not support Mourdock's statements on rape.
"I don't agree with what he said. I thought that what he said was kinda crazy," Barbour said. The former governor tried to play down the impact on the presidential race, saying that outside Mourdock's state people are "not talking about what someone who's secretary of state in Indiana said".
Even if Mourdock's comments – the latest in a series of missteps by Republicans over issues of rape and abortion – do not adversely affect his campaign, his notoriety could have an impact on Romney's popularity among women, which polls show has improved over the last month.
The latest AP/GfK poll found that Romney has eroded Obama's substantial lead among women – an issue which has been seen as key to deciding the election. The poll showed Romney dead even with Obama on 47%, having been 16 points behind the president with women voters just a month before.
The poll was largely conducted before Mourdock made his remarks, however, and Romney's reluctance to withdraw support from the Indianan is unlikely to be popular. In a debate on Tuesday, Mourdock said he was opposed to abortion even when a woman had been raped, saying "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen".
In a press conference on Wednesday, Mourdock said he stood by his comments, apologising only for people misinterpreting them.
Obama sought to draw attention to the comments on Wednesday, saying the statement was "demeaning to women". Asked about Mourdock's comment on The Tonight Show, Obama told host Jay Leno: "Rape is rape. It is a crime."
The president continued the theme on Thursday, telling a crowd of supporters in Florida: "I don't think politicians in Washington, most of whom are male, should be making healthcare decisions for women."
Romney refused to answer questions from reporters about Mourdock on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said that Romney "disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr Mourdock's comments do not reflect Governor Romney's views". However, she added: "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him."
There was some good news for Mourdock, however, as John McCain, who beat Romney to the Republican nomination for president in 2008, said he still supported Mourdock. McCain had appeared to waver when interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday. Asked if he still supported Mourdock, McCain said "it depends on what he does".
"If he apologises, says he misspoke and he was wrong, and he asks the people to forgive him then obviously I'd be the first [to forgive Mourdock]," he said.
On Thursday a spokesman for McCain issued a statement saying the 2008 presidential candidate hoped Mourdock would be elected to the Senate.
"Senator McCain was traveling yesterday in Florida and did not have an opportunity to see Mr Mourdock's full press conference before he taped his CNN interview," the statement said. "Senator McCain is glad that Mr Mourdock apologised to the people of Indiana and clarified his previous statement."
Mourdock has also been backed by the national Republican senatorial committee, although the New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte dropped plans to campaign with Mourdock, a spokesman saying she disagreed with his comments.
Mourdock is not the first Republican to find himself in hot water over beliefs related to abortion. In August, Todd Akin, a Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, said that pregnancy as a result of "legitimate rape" is rare as "the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down".
Just last week, Republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois told reporters "you can't find one instance" where it had been necessary to perform an abortion due to the risk to the mother's life, due to medical advances. Medical experts note that there are some cases where the only option in the case of complications sustained during pregnancy is to abort the foetus.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Could a Romney / Biden Ticket happen?
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news,
Standing up, so you mean something big is about to happen. it's a very close race. it's a very very close race. one of the consequences is that it is entirely possible that at the end of all this the president of the united states is going to be john boehner. I'm not kidding.
Here's how this works. the process by which that could happen is not that hard to understand and it really could feasibly happen.
This is the battle ground map. the yellow states. the states that are red or blue is it seems clear that the states are going to vote. Let's assume there are not going to be any big surprises there in the non- battle ground states. that brings us to just the battlegrounds. those are the states in yellow.
So in this scenario, before we get to the battleground states, President Obama, just from adding up the blue states, has 237 electoral votes. That's even before we get to the battleground states in yellow. you need 270 to win.
So president Obama picks up Ohio, all important Ohio. Let's say he also wins new Hampshire, and let's say he wins the great state of Wisconsin.
But let's say mitt Romney wins all of the other battleground state on the map. this is not that hard to image. Romney would win Florida and north Carolina and Virginia and Colorado and Nevada and what I like to think of as the Iowa part of Ohio.
So if that happens on election day, look at what the electoral count is. that is a tie. 269 to 269. Neither of them is president in this circumstance. So how in this circumstance do we do side who wins the presidency?
Jonathan Carl from ABC News spun this out in print and we've been look looking at it ever since. It is not an accident what would happen in the case of a 269 to 269 electoral college tie. This is not something we would have to make it up on the spot. The founders talked about what would be the right thing to do in a circumstances like this. And it turns out what they thought was a very strange thing. so according to the 12th amendment, it's the house of representatives who gets to choose who is the president.
But, they do not vote on who's going to be president the way they normally vote on things in the house. In that circumstance, when they're making that specific decision, each state just gets one vote per state. So no matter how many members of congress there are from each state, no matter how big the state's population, each state gets an equal vote.
So in this scenario that get us to an electoral tie between Mitt Romney and President Obama, Mitt Romney wins more states. he wins 29 states to Obama's 21 states. Which means that if the house of representatives voted, Mitt Romney would be elected by the house of representatives. Nobody can instruct the state congressional delegations exactly how to cast their ballots, they get to decide on their own.
You would think they would vote the way their state voted and work it out in their own mini democracies or something. But if they did that the way their states voted, this is who we would end up with.
What if we ended up instead 25 states picking president Romney and 25 states picking President Obama. There is no tie breaker in that case. you know who becomes president in that circumstances? Not Mitt Romney, not President Obama, but this guy, speaker of the house John Boehner. That's who becomes president in the event of a 25/25 tie.
The more likely outcome in our electoral tie that got us here, is that there will be no tie in the house. Mitt Romney will be elected president in the house, but then what happens to the vice presidential tie?
If there's an electoral tie it goes to the house of represents we get president Romney and vice president Paul Ryan not automatically. This is the amazing part and it's on purpose. It didn't come up by accident.
The vice presidency would be decided in the senate after the presidency was decided in the house of representatives. So it's kind of nuts but look it how it works out. In the senate they would vote for a vice president in a straightforward way. One senate, one vote. We would be talking about the senate we would have after the election.
If it's a republican majority in the senate, presumably that republican majority would pick Paul Ryan.
If there is a democratic majority, that senate would presumably pick Joe Biden, right?
If the senate is tied at 50/50, in that case the sitting vice president would break the vote. So then we would have a process dictated by the constitution of the United States.
President Mitt Romney and vice president Joe Biden. Together. At once. That is a totally feasible prospect as an outcome for this election.
Isn't this a great country?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
For the undecided voters (Video/ Transcribt)
Transcript:
>>> before you get our vote, you're going to have to answer some questions. questions like --
>> when is the election? how soon do we have to decide?
>> what are the names of the two people running? and be specific.
>> who is the president right now? is he or she running? because if so, experience is maybe something we should consider.
>> i have been told that when "snl" lampoons you, you've finally made it or maybe that's what helps me sleep at night. the other possibility is that you are simply so ripe for mockery, your mere existence is so absurd that "snl" cannot ignore you any longer. undecided voters i'm talking to you. take a look good, hard look in the mirror because this is your wake-up call. officially out of excuses. the debates are wrapped up and with two weeks left, it's time to make up your minds. we got to know these guys pretty well. i mean, i know the candidates better than i know my own neighbors. but that's because i hate them. if you still don't know who president obama is, look around you. some will say he's like jesus, he is everywhere and in everything. he's in your higher milk prices an out of work cousin, in your second mortgage and your uncle who keeps telling you to buy gold and he's on "the view" everything morning. as for mitt romney, he's also been pretty easy to find from california to new hampshire, you can find him at any one of his 400 homes. you can find him at fox news 17 times a day. you can often find him on both sides of an issue, and sometimes you'll find he's the only candidate to show up at a debate. and so i don't buy this undecided nonsense. in 2011 a study found most women believed 180 seconds was long enough to decide whether a potential suitor was mr. right or mr. wrong. men make snap decisions all the time like when they decide to buy a mustang at 55.
>> yep.
>> or grow to mustache. colin powell made a study of good decision making insisting you should need to less than 40% of available information to make a tough decision and no more than 70%. someone should have told that to haml hamlet. i'm calling your bluff undecideds, you, the most contemptible voting group out there. you're either procrastinating, lazy, or lying, so pick a side and make up your minds and consider this your written invitation to the election. oka
>> when is the election? how soon do we have to decide?
>> what are the names of the two people running? and be specific.
>> who is the president right now? is he or she running? because if so, experience is maybe something we should consider.
>> i have been told that when "snl" lampoons you, you've finally made it or maybe that's what helps me sleep at night. the other possibility is that you are simply so ripe for mockery, your mere existence is so absurd that "snl" cannot ignore you any longer. undecided voters i'm talking to you. take a look good, hard look in the mirror because this is your wake-up call. officially out of excuses. the debates are wrapped up and with two weeks left, it's time to make up your minds. we got to know these guys pretty well. i mean, i know the candidates better than i know my own neighbors. but that's because i hate them. if you still don't know who president obama is, look around you. some will say he's like jesus, he is everywhere and in everything. he's in your higher milk prices an out of work cousin, in your second mortgage and your uncle who keeps telling you to buy gold and he's on "the view" everything morning. as for mitt romney, he's also been pretty easy to find from california to new hampshire, you can find him at any one of his 400 homes. you can find him at fox news 17 times a day. you can often find him on both sides of an issue, and sometimes you'll find he's the only candidate to show up at a debate. and so i don't buy this undecided nonsense. in 2011 a study found most women believed 180 seconds was long enough to decide whether a potential suitor was mr. right or mr. wrong. men make snap decisions all the time like when they decide to buy a mustang at 55.
>> yep.
>> or grow to mustache. colin powell made a study of good decision making insisting you should need to less than 40% of available information to make a tough decision and no more than 70%. someone should have told that to haml hamlet. i'm calling your bluff undecideds, you, the most contemptible voting group out there. you're either procrastinating, lazy, or lying, so pick a side and make up your minds and consider this your written invitation to the election. oka
USA-Today Fact-Check of the third Presidential Debate
USA-Today 1:55AM EDT October 23. 2012
- During the third and final presidential debate Monday night, President Obama and Mitt Romney disputed an array of statements on foreign policy. Here are a few worth a deeper look:
Defense spending
Claim: Obama said Romney wants to add $2 trillion in spending the military hasn't asked for and that defense spending has increased every year he has been president.
The facts: Obama's claim about Romney's increase is accurate; his statement that budgets have increased is not.
Romney calls for spending a minimum of 4% of the nation's gross domestic product on defense. Over 10 years, that would amount to about $2 trillion more for the Pentagon than Obama has budgeted over the same period.
The 2013 Pentagon base budget — excluding costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — as proposed by Obama declines by $5 billion compared with 2012, according to the Pentagon's comptroller.
MORE: Obama, Romney meet in final debate
ANALYSIS: Will final debate break voters' stalemate?
Syria
Claim: Obama said that Romney said he would provide heavy arms to Syrian rebels.
The facts: Romney did say he would provide heavy weaponry to rebels in Syria. In an Oct. 8 speech in Lexington, Va., Romney said he "will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat (President Bashar) Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets."
The 'apology tour'
Claim: Romney said Obama went on "an apology tour of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America."
The facts: The use of the term "apology tour" to describe Obama's April 2009 foreign visits appears to have started with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
In his book, Romney cited a number of speeches in which he said Obama apologized: "The United States certainly shares blame" for the global banking meltdown, Obama told the French. The George W. Bush administration had "lowered our standing in the world," he told the English. And to the Turkish parliament, he said: "The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history," which included slavery, segregation and treatment of American Indians.
Even so, none of his foreign speeches included what many people would consider an essential element of an apology: the words "we're sorry." That's why Obama is correct that professional fact-checkers have rated the statement as untrue.
Mali
Claim: Romney, citing a litany of Middle East hotspots, said northern Mali "has been taken over by al-Qaeda-type individuals."
The facts: Mali, an African nation of 14 million people in the western Sahara desert, has been embroiled in conflict this year as insurgent groups have fought for independence. The Economic Community of West African States has identified at least three of the groups as having links with al-Qaeda. Intelligence officials say the groups may also have connections to insurgent groups in Algeria and Libya.
The Obama administration's response has been low-key, but on Monday, a French defense official told the Associated Press that it was discussing drone strikes with the United States. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also sounded the alarm Monday, telling a German military conference near Berlin that "Free democratic states cannot accept international terrorism gaining a safe refuge in the north of the country."
Libya
Claim: Obama said Romney suggested that getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya was "mission creep."
The facts: "What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle," Romney wrote in the National Review on April 21, in the midst of the Libya operation. In that piece, Romney said he supported the "specific, limited mission" of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from the Gadhafi regime, but he said Obama owed Americans a better explanation of why he had changed his position to call for the Libyan dictator's ouster.
After Gadhafi was killed by rebel forces, Romney said, "The world is a better place with Gadhafi gone."
Iraq
Claim: Obama said Romney wanted to leave troops in Iraq after Dec. 31, 2011, a claim Romney denied.
The facts: When the U.S. government was trying to secure a status of forces agreement last year with the Iraqi government that would have allowed some U.S. troops to remain in the country, Romney said more U.S. troops should remain than Obama was proposing.
Romney repeated that sentiment in a video leaked to Mother Jones from a May fundraiser. Romney said: "This president's failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq: unthinkable." But there is no record that Romney made the claim as recently as "a few weeks ago."
Global Influence
Claim: Romney said nowhere in the world is the United States' role greater than it was four years ago.
The facts: Global attitudes about the United States have declined slightly over the past four years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2008, 84% to 14% positive-negative view of the United States and 14% unfavorable. In 2012, that favorability figure had fallen to 80%-14%.
Veterans
Claim: Obama said the unemployment rate for veterans is below the national jobless rate.
The facts: The unemployment rate for veterans in September was 6.7%, just above the three-year low of 6.6% reached the previous month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's below the 7.8% national jobless rate. However, unemployment for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan era was 9.7% last month.
Iran
Claim: Obama said Romney now favors bilateral talks with Iran, a reversal of his previous stance.
The facts: The Associated Press reported that Romney refused to answer when asked Sunday whether he supported one-on-one talks.
Russia
Claim: Obama said Romney has called Russia the largest geopolitical threat to the United States.
The facts: It is true that Romney said in a March 26 interview with CNN that Russia "is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe." He added: "They fight for every cause for the world's worse actors. The idea that he (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed." In a subsequent interview, Romney sought to clarify his remarks, saying, "That doesn't make them an enemy. It doesn't make them a combatant. They don't represent the No. 1 national security threat."
Class size
Claim: Obama said Romney said that reduced class sizes at schools did not make a difference.
The facts: During a May visit to a Philadelphia charter school, Romney discussed his approach to education when he was governor of Massachusetts. He said people told him that smaller class sizes were needed, and Romney said he analyzed every school district and their students' performance.
"I said let's compare the average classroom size from each school district with the performance of our students, because we test our kids, and we'll see if there's a relationship. And there was not."
He later cited a study by a consulting firm that studied classroom size around the world and came to a similar conclusion. "So it's not the classroom size that's driving the success of those school systems."
Oil imports
Claim: Obama said the United States has cut its oil imports to the lowest levels in 20 years.
The facts: That's close. The Department of Energy said this year that U.S. dependence on imported oil fell to 45% last year, the first time it dropped below 50% since 1997. The White House, citing DOE figures, says on its website that net imports — that's imports minus exports — as a share of total consumption fell to 45% last year and that was the lowest level in 16 years. Meanwhile, U.S. oil production has risen sharply. September's domestic production was the highest of any September since 1998, the American Petroleum Institute reported last week. Overall, petroleum imports fell to 10.5 million barrels a day in September, down 602,000 barrels a day from a year earlier.
Cooperation with Israel
Claim: Obama said, "We have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history."
The facts: By its nature, intelligence cooperation is difficult to verify. But military cooperation is a bit more visible. On Sunday, the United States and Israel launched a joint training operation called "Austere Challenge 12." Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro called the exercise the "largest and most significant joint exercise in the allies' history."
Nevertheless, the event also happens at a low point in the political relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama declined to meet with Netanyahu last month when Israeli leader visited the U.S. And asked by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes whether he felt pressure on Iran from Israel, Obama said he would "block out any noise" from the Israelis.
Middle East peace talks
Claim: Romney said the United States has not exerted leadership in the Middle East and said Israel and the Palestinians haven't met in two years
The facts: The last direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders happened in September 2010 — and then quickly broke down when the Israeli moratorium on settlements in the West Bank expired.
Obama himself has admitted that peace in the Middle East has eluded him, as it has every president since Jimmy Carter. "I have not been able to move the peace process forward in the Middle East the way I wanted. It's something we focused on very early. But the truth of the matter is that the parties, they've got to want it as well," he told Washington, D.C., television station WJLA in July.
Romney is more pessimistic. In a secretly taped fundraiser more famous for his "47%" remark, he said: "The pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish," that "it's going to remain an unsolved problem" and that a permanent agreement is "just wishful thinking." He also angered many Palestinians in July when he said at a Jerusalem fundraiser that cultural differences accounted for the stark disparities in wealth between Israel and Palestine.
Romney has softened that stance more recently. In a foreign policy speech in Virginia this month, Romney said he would "will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel." By that score, Romney's Palestinian policy is the same as Obama's. They both espouse a "two-state" solution that first became U.S. policy under President George W. Bush.
Carter, with a delegation of elder statesmen visiting Israel Monday, said prospects of a lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord are "vanishing."
U.S.- Israel Relations
Claim: Romney said Obama was trying to create "daylight" between the United States and Israel.
The facts: The reported "daylight" policy first surfaced in a Washington Post story recounting a 2009 meeting Obama had with Jewish leaders, in which one leader told Obama, "If you want Israel to take risks, then its leaders must know that the United States is right next to them."
Obama disagreed, saying, "Look at the past eight years. … During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."
By that, the president seemed to be saying that the United States can be more effective acting as an honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The White House hasn't disputed the Washington Post account, but press secretary Jay Carney has made it clear that the policy, if there is one, does not extend to Iran. "There is no daylight between the United States and Israel when it comes to the absolute need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," Carney said.
China
Claim: Obama said his administration has brought more trade cases against China in four years than the Bush administration did in eight years.
The facts: The Obama administration has brought eight trade cases against China with the World Trade Organization, according to PolitiFact.com and the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Bush filed seven cases over two terms. However, China joined the WTO in 2001, after President George W. Bush took office, and member countries effectively gave China a grace period. The United States was the first nation to file a trade case against China in 2004. Thus, Obama could take advantage of some of the groundwork laid by Bush's administration.
Exports to China
Claim: Obama said U.S. exports to China have doubled since the start of the Obama administration.
The facts: The United States has more than doubled its exports to China during Obama's presidency, but that has coincided with rising imports from China as well. When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the United States exported $4.2 billion worth of goods to China. By August 2012, that had risen to $8.6 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Imports from China over that time period have risen from $24.7 billion to $37.3 billion. So the American trade balance with China has gone from $20.6 billion in favor of China in January 2009 to $28.7 billion in August 2012.
Education
Claim: Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, want to cut the education budget, according to Obama.
The facts: Though Ryan's budget has called for $5.3 trillion cuts in federal spending over the next decade, he has not singled out education programs for reduction or elimination, according to Politifact. An analysis by the National Education Association determined that the large cuts proposed by Ryan, and generally embraced by Romney, could cut 2 million spots in the Head Start early childhood education program.
Romney insists that he is not going to cut education programs. "I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college. I'm planning on continuing to grow, so I'm not planning on making changes there," Romney said in his Oct. 3 debate with Obama.
Defense budget
Claim: Romney said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called Pentagon budget cuts totaling $1 trillion over 10 years devastating.
The facts: Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have agreed to $487 billion in budget cuts. However, about $500 billion in additional cuts to defense spending will automatically begin in January — a process termed "sequestration" — if Congress and Obama do not reach a comprehensive deal to reduce deficits. Panetta was referring to those $500 billion in cuts as devastating. Moreover, Romney's running mate, Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, voted for that Budget Control Act that included the automatic cuts.
- During the third and final presidential debate Monday night, President Obama and Mitt Romney disputed an array of statements on foreign policy. Here are a few worth a deeper look:
Defense spending
Claim: Obama said Romney wants to add $2 trillion in spending the military hasn't asked for and that defense spending has increased every year he has been president.
The facts: Obama's claim about Romney's increase is accurate; his statement that budgets have increased is not.
Romney calls for spending a minimum of 4% of the nation's gross domestic product on defense. Over 10 years, that would amount to about $2 trillion more for the Pentagon than Obama has budgeted over the same period.
The 2013 Pentagon base budget — excluding costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — as proposed by Obama declines by $5 billion compared with 2012, according to the Pentagon's comptroller.
MORE: Obama, Romney meet in final debate
ANALYSIS: Will final debate break voters' stalemate?
Syria
Claim: Obama said that Romney said he would provide heavy arms to Syrian rebels.
The facts: Romney did say he would provide heavy weaponry to rebels in Syria. In an Oct. 8 speech in Lexington, Va., Romney said he "will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat (President Bashar) Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets."
The 'apology tour'
Claim: Romney said Obama went on "an apology tour of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America."
The facts: The use of the term "apology tour" to describe Obama's April 2009 foreign visits appears to have started with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
In his book, Romney cited a number of speeches in which he said Obama apologized: "The United States certainly shares blame" for the global banking meltdown, Obama told the French. The George W. Bush administration had "lowered our standing in the world," he told the English. And to the Turkish parliament, he said: "The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history," which included slavery, segregation and treatment of American Indians.
Even so, none of his foreign speeches included what many people would consider an essential element of an apology: the words "we're sorry." That's why Obama is correct that professional fact-checkers have rated the statement as untrue.
Mali
Claim: Romney, citing a litany of Middle East hotspots, said northern Mali "has been taken over by al-Qaeda-type individuals."
The facts: Mali, an African nation of 14 million people in the western Sahara desert, has been embroiled in conflict this year as insurgent groups have fought for independence. The Economic Community of West African States has identified at least three of the groups as having links with al-Qaeda. Intelligence officials say the groups may also have connections to insurgent groups in Algeria and Libya.
The Obama administration's response has been low-key, but on Monday, a French defense official told the Associated Press that it was discussing drone strikes with the United States. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also sounded the alarm Monday, telling a German military conference near Berlin that "Free democratic states cannot accept international terrorism gaining a safe refuge in the north of the country."
Libya
Claim: Obama said Romney suggested that getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya was "mission creep."
The facts: "What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle," Romney wrote in the National Review on April 21, in the midst of the Libya operation. In that piece, Romney said he supported the "specific, limited mission" of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from the Gadhafi regime, but he said Obama owed Americans a better explanation of why he had changed his position to call for the Libyan dictator's ouster.
After Gadhafi was killed by rebel forces, Romney said, "The world is a better place with Gadhafi gone."
Iraq
Claim: Obama said Romney wanted to leave troops in Iraq after Dec. 31, 2011, a claim Romney denied.
The facts: When the U.S. government was trying to secure a status of forces agreement last year with the Iraqi government that would have allowed some U.S. troops to remain in the country, Romney said more U.S. troops should remain than Obama was proposing.
Romney repeated that sentiment in a video leaked to Mother Jones from a May fundraiser. Romney said: "This president's failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq: unthinkable." But there is no record that Romney made the claim as recently as "a few weeks ago."
Global Influence
Claim: Romney said nowhere in the world is the United States' role greater than it was four years ago.
The facts: Global attitudes about the United States have declined slightly over the past four years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2008, 84% to 14% positive-negative view of the United States and 14% unfavorable. In 2012, that favorability figure had fallen to 80%-14%.
Veterans
Claim: Obama said the unemployment rate for veterans is below the national jobless rate.
The facts: The unemployment rate for veterans in September was 6.7%, just above the three-year low of 6.6% reached the previous month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's below the 7.8% national jobless rate. However, unemployment for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan era was 9.7% last month.
Iran
Claim: Obama said Romney now favors bilateral talks with Iran, a reversal of his previous stance.
The facts: The Associated Press reported that Romney refused to answer when asked Sunday whether he supported one-on-one talks.
Russia
Claim: Obama said Romney has called Russia the largest geopolitical threat to the United States.
The facts: It is true that Romney said in a March 26 interview with CNN that Russia "is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe." He added: "They fight for every cause for the world's worse actors. The idea that he (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed." In a subsequent interview, Romney sought to clarify his remarks, saying, "That doesn't make them an enemy. It doesn't make them a combatant. They don't represent the No. 1 national security threat."
Class size
Claim: Obama said Romney said that reduced class sizes at schools did not make a difference.
The facts: During a May visit to a Philadelphia charter school, Romney discussed his approach to education when he was governor of Massachusetts. He said people told him that smaller class sizes were needed, and Romney said he analyzed every school district and their students' performance.
"I said let's compare the average classroom size from each school district with the performance of our students, because we test our kids, and we'll see if there's a relationship. And there was not."
He later cited a study by a consulting firm that studied classroom size around the world and came to a similar conclusion. "So it's not the classroom size that's driving the success of those school systems."
Oil imports
Claim: Obama said the United States has cut its oil imports to the lowest levels in 20 years.
The facts: That's close. The Department of Energy said this year that U.S. dependence on imported oil fell to 45% last year, the first time it dropped below 50% since 1997. The White House, citing DOE figures, says on its website that net imports — that's imports minus exports — as a share of total consumption fell to 45% last year and that was the lowest level in 16 years. Meanwhile, U.S. oil production has risen sharply. September's domestic production was the highest of any September since 1998, the American Petroleum Institute reported last week. Overall, petroleum imports fell to 10.5 million barrels a day in September, down 602,000 barrels a day from a year earlier.
Cooperation with Israel
Claim: Obama said, "We have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history."
The facts: By its nature, intelligence cooperation is difficult to verify. But military cooperation is a bit more visible. On Sunday, the United States and Israel launched a joint training operation called "Austere Challenge 12." Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro called the exercise the "largest and most significant joint exercise in the allies' history."
Nevertheless, the event also happens at a low point in the political relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama declined to meet with Netanyahu last month when Israeli leader visited the U.S. And asked by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes whether he felt pressure on Iran from Israel, Obama said he would "block out any noise" from the Israelis.
Middle East peace talks
Claim: Romney said the United States has not exerted leadership in the Middle East and said Israel and the Palestinians haven't met in two years
The facts: The last direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders happened in September 2010 — and then quickly broke down when the Israeli moratorium on settlements in the West Bank expired.
Obama himself has admitted that peace in the Middle East has eluded him, as it has every president since Jimmy Carter. "I have not been able to move the peace process forward in the Middle East the way I wanted. It's something we focused on very early. But the truth of the matter is that the parties, they've got to want it as well," he told Washington, D.C., television station WJLA in July.
Romney is more pessimistic. In a secretly taped fundraiser more famous for his "47%" remark, he said: "The pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish," that "it's going to remain an unsolved problem" and that a permanent agreement is "just wishful thinking." He also angered many Palestinians in July when he said at a Jerusalem fundraiser that cultural differences accounted for the stark disparities in wealth between Israel and Palestine.
Romney has softened that stance more recently. In a foreign policy speech in Virginia this month, Romney said he would "will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel." By that score, Romney's Palestinian policy is the same as Obama's. They both espouse a "two-state" solution that first became U.S. policy under President George W. Bush.
Carter, with a delegation of elder statesmen visiting Israel Monday, said prospects of a lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord are "vanishing."
U.S.- Israel Relations
Claim: Romney said Obama was trying to create "daylight" between the United States and Israel.
The facts: The reported "daylight" policy first surfaced in a Washington Post story recounting a 2009 meeting Obama had with Jewish leaders, in which one leader told Obama, "If you want Israel to take risks, then its leaders must know that the United States is right next to them."
Obama disagreed, saying, "Look at the past eight years. … During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."
By that, the president seemed to be saying that the United States can be more effective acting as an honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The White House hasn't disputed the Washington Post account, but press secretary Jay Carney has made it clear that the policy, if there is one, does not extend to Iran. "There is no daylight between the United States and Israel when it comes to the absolute need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," Carney said.
China
Claim: Obama said his administration has brought more trade cases against China in four years than the Bush administration did in eight years.
The facts: The Obama administration has brought eight trade cases against China with the World Trade Organization, according to PolitiFact.com and the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Bush filed seven cases over two terms. However, China joined the WTO in 2001, after President George W. Bush took office, and member countries effectively gave China a grace period. The United States was the first nation to file a trade case against China in 2004. Thus, Obama could take advantage of some of the groundwork laid by Bush's administration.
Exports to China
Claim: Obama said U.S. exports to China have doubled since the start of the Obama administration.
The facts: The United States has more than doubled its exports to China during Obama's presidency, but that has coincided with rising imports from China as well. When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the United States exported $4.2 billion worth of goods to China. By August 2012, that had risen to $8.6 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Imports from China over that time period have risen from $24.7 billion to $37.3 billion. So the American trade balance with China has gone from $20.6 billion in favor of China in January 2009 to $28.7 billion in August 2012.
Education
Claim: Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, want to cut the education budget, according to Obama.
The facts: Though Ryan's budget has called for $5.3 trillion cuts in federal spending over the next decade, he has not singled out education programs for reduction or elimination, according to Politifact. An analysis by the National Education Association determined that the large cuts proposed by Ryan, and generally embraced by Romney, could cut 2 million spots in the Head Start early childhood education program.
Romney insists that he is not going to cut education programs. "I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college. I'm planning on continuing to grow, so I'm not planning on making changes there," Romney said in his Oct. 3 debate with Obama.
Defense budget
Claim: Romney said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called Pentagon budget cuts totaling $1 trillion over 10 years devastating.
The facts: Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have agreed to $487 billion in budget cuts. However, about $500 billion in additional cuts to defense spending will automatically begin in January — a process termed "sequestration" — if Congress and Obama do not reach a comprehensive deal to reduce deficits. Panetta was referring to those $500 billion in cuts as devastating. Moreover, Romney's running mate, Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, voted for that Budget Control Act that included the automatic cuts.