ThinkProgress Logo

Security

VIEWPOINT: Why We Are Having The Wrong Debate On Foreign Policy

By Zack Beauchamp on Oct 21, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Our foreign policy debate makes no sense.

At last week’s town hall, the only foreign policy question, on the attack in Libya, devolved into a dispute over how long it took President Obama to call it terrorism. That isn’t even the sixth most important question about Libya, let alone the rest of the world. Obama’s semantic choice was only at issue because Romney made a point of bringing it up, a seemingly odd choice when there’s a wealth of actually substantive arguments he could have made in response to Crowley’s question. Did Romney think the best way to score points with voters was proving Obama didn’t say the magic T word?

As it happens, yes. A survey of Romney’s foreign policy positions reveals an elevation of word choice and symbolism to totemic status; a basic assumption that the way the President speaks and presents himself is a principal determinant of American policy success. If you presuppose that, then it matters a great deal whether Obama chose to call the Benghazi attack terrorism, as refusing the label would lead to an inability to respond to the attacks as such. And it’s more than that – understanding why Romney thinks language is so important is the key to explaining why so many of this year’s foreign policy debates have seen so petty.

This fetishization of linguistic argument pervades Romney campaign arguments on foreign policy. He chastises Obama on Israel not for specific policies, but rather for having the temerity to say critical things about its government in public. He won’t explain how, specifically, Obama could’ve been harsher on Iran beyond rhetorical posturing and more strident remarks supporting the 2009 uprising. His Afghanistan message is that we should withdraw in 2014, but the administration was wrong to say that publicly. Romney blasts Obama’s diplomatic overtures to Russia, but doesn’t have much in the way of a specific alternative approach except stronger public criticism of Russian policy. Ditto with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. This pattern repeats on issue after issue after issue — Romney won’t commit to significant policy differences with the administration, but will happily propose to “project strength, not weakness” and end “appeasement” by shifting American rhetoric on the issue in question.

Read more

Election

Rep. Steve King Won’t Say If He Believes Contraception Should Be Legal

By Judd Legum on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Iowa Congressman Steve King (R) pointedly refused to say whether he believes contraception should be sold legally in the United States. King, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the seminal Supreme Court decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state ban on the sale of contraception.

As to whether he was “personally against” the sale of contraception, King said “I’ve not taken a position on the sale of contraceptives at all.”

Watch it:

In August, responding to controversial comments by his college Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), King said he’d never heard of a case of a woman getting pregnant from rape.

Health

Rubio Develops ‘Romnesia’ While Trying To Explain Romney’s Position On Contraception

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Oct 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Last week, President Obama joked that some Romney surrogates are suffering from “Romnesia” — an ability to forget the candidate’s old positions on major campaign issues, in favor of his new positions. On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was presenting severe symptoms of that condition, spending a good portion of his interview trying to explain how Romney’s stances on contraception and abortion have not changed and ignoring the campaign’s efforts to to obscure Romney’s record on women’s health issues.

For instance, Rubio tried to sweep under the rug Romney’s support of the Blunt Amendment, a measure that would have allowed employers with “moral objections” to deny contraception coverage to their female employees. He also refused to say if Romney would “sign a bill that banned abortion,” as the former Massachusetts governor had promised during a GOP primary debate in 2007:

DAVID GREGORY (HOST): If [Romney] supports a measure that would say to employers you don’t have to provide access [to contraception], and then he is saying everybody should have access, how do both things become true?

RUBIO: Well, I think that’s a general statement about most employers. But there are a handful of employers that have conscientious objections to it, like the Catholic Church. No one is talking about contraception or preventing people from gaing access to contraception.[...]

GREGORY: On the question of abortion, true or untrue, Governor Romney has said he would sign a bill that banned abortion, should that come to his desk.

RUBIO: And I think what he is saying is laying out very clearly what his record is on it, and the exceptions that he supports.

Watch it:

Not only would the Blunt Amendment prevent women from gaining access to abortion, but Romney has also pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act writ large. Doing so, would eliminate provisions that require insurers and employers to offer contraception coverage without additional co-pays. Romney’s pledge to defund Planned Parenthood would also significantly weaken women’s access to affordable contraception.

Romney and Paul Ryan have both supported personhood amendments — on the state or federal level — that would outlaw all abortion, as well as some forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization. As Romney put it during a GOP debate in 2007, “I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don’t want to have abortion in this country at all, period.” “[I]f the Congress [banned abortion], we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.”

Climate Progress

Seminal Study Finds ‘Climate-Change Footprint’ In North America, ‘Continent With The Largest Increases in Disasters’

By Joe Romm on Oct 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm

“Climate­-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flood­ing, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­-fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

So concludes Munich Re, a top reinsurer, in a major new study that, for the first time, links the rapid rise in North American extreme weather catastrophes to manmade climate change.

At the same time non-climatic events (earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis) have hardly changed, as the figure shows.

Prof. Peter Höppe, who heads Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research unit, said:

“In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climate-change footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades. Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence. If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible, all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing.”

The 274-page study, “Severe weather in North America” draws on “the most comprehensive natural catastrophe database worldwide,” though my favorite part is four words at the bottom of the back jacket:

Precisely.

This study builds on a September 2010 analysis by Munich Re, “Large number of weather extremes as strong indication of climate change,” which concluded:

… it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge

At the time Höppe, explained to me what had persuaded him of the causal link:

For me the most convincing piece of evidence that global warming has been contributing already to more and more intense weather related natural catastrophes is the fact that while we find a steep increase in the number of loss relevant weather events (about tripling in the last 30 years) we only find a slight increase in geophysical (earthquake, volcano, tsunami) events, which should not be affected by global warming. If the whole trend we find in weather related disaster should be caused by reporting bias, or socio-demographic or economic developments we would expect to find it similarly for the geophysical events.

And that was before two years of off-the-charts extreme weather catastrophes, particularly in North America (see NOAA Chief 11/11: U.S. Record of a Dozen Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters in One Year Is “a Harbinger of Things to Come”).

It was also before multiple studies linking the surge in extreme weather to global warming, particularly in North America (see NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather and links therein and below).

The new study finds:

Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America. The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe and 1.5 in South America.

The study draws on a forthcoming journal article on how global warming is driving up “large-scale thunderstorm forcing”:

The results of the study indicate that climatic changes have driven up multi­year aver­ages of thunderstorm-­related normalized losses since 1970 and that anthropogenic climate change, most likely respon­sible for increasing levels of humidity over time, is fully con­sistent with this change.

Here’s a key figure on thunderstorm losses from the Munich Re study, “normalized to the current amount of destructible wealth exposed in the areas hit.” The “normalized annual overall thunderstorm losses displays a clear positive trend, even if the record­breaking year 2011 is ignored“:

Read more

Justice

Ohio Secretary of State Says Restoring Early Voting Is ‘Un-American’

By Aviva Shen on Oct 21, 2012 at 11:41 am

During his keynote speech at an election law symposium at University of Toledo on Friday, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) claimed two recent court decisions restoring early voting on the last three days before the election was “un-American.”

Husted has sought to restrict early voting, even openly defying a court order to lift the ban on voting on the last three days before Election Day. Once the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, Husted immediately capped voting hours at just 16 hours for the entire three day period, down from 24 hours in 2008.

At the UT symposium, Husted continued his revolt against the federal courts that restored early voting. The Toledo Blade reports:

Mr. Husted spoke of a recent federal court decision that he claimed intruded on Ohio’s ability to run its own elections and called it an “un-American approach to voting” — an opinion not shared by many who attended the symposium.

“It’s the job of the federal courts to enforce the Constitution; that includes the right to vote,” said Daniel Tokaji, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law who was a panelist at the symposium, after the secretary’s comments. “…We should be doing everything we can to improve access to eligible voters.”

Husted asserted that every vote would be counted fairly and accurately, saying that voting in Ohio is “easy” and “anybody who says that there are residents in Ohio being barred from the right to vote is irresponsible.” Husted has certainly had to contend with many such “irresponsible” people. Though the court restored this three day period of voting, Husted has still prevented Ohioans from voting on evenings or weekends throughout October. He also recently limited the ways election boards can contact voters to clear up errors in their absentee ballots.

Climate Progress

Addressing Climate Change Is Pro-Business

By Climate Guest Blogger on Oct 21, 2012 at 11:36 am

by Bill Becker

An ongoing argument in the presidential election campaign is whether Gov. Romney’s or President Obama’s positions are better for small businesses on issues such as government regulation and energy policy. I asked David Levine for his opinion.

Levine is cofounder and CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), a growing non-partisan coalition of business networks and businesses committed to creating a vision, a framework and policies that support a vibrant, just and sustainable economy.

Founded in 2009, ASBC’s mission is to inform and engage business leaders, and to educate policy makers and the media, about the need and opportunities for a sustainable economy.

ASBC and its organizational members represent more than 150,000 businesses and more than 300,000 individual entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals across the United States. Members cover the gamut of local and state chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business groups, local living economy groups, women business leaders, economic development organizations and investor and business incubators

Here’s what Levine had to say.

1) Both presidential candidates have highlighted the value of small businesses in creating jobs. How important is mitigating and adapting to climate change to small business development and success?

There is a particular concern among our members about the consequences of human-induced climate change. As the World Bank’s World Development Report 2010 argues, “Economic growth alone is unlikely to be fast or equitable enough to counter threats from climate change, particularly if it remains carbon intensive and accelerates global warming.” The World Bank goes on to say, “climate policy cannot be framed as a choice between growth and climate change. In fact, climate-smart policies are those that enhance development, reduce vulnerability, and finance the transition to low-carbon growth paths.”

Businesses of all sizes will be hurt by the failure to address climate change. Many small businesses have taken innovative steps to use clean energy and to make their operations more energy efficient. Small businesses, lacking the resources of major corporations, will be harder hit by climate change and stand to gain considerably from efforts to reverse it. Small businesses will be hit with increasing liability and insurance premiums as storms and other impacts of climate change become more prevalent. These are funds that are better spent on building their business and creating more jobs.

In addition, consumers are increasingly demanding products and services that utilize clean energy. By making these resources more readily available through policy and market incentives, businesses can better meet this demand.

2) Is there a legitimate federal role in climate mitigation and adaptation?

Read more

Security

GOP Senator Says Romney’s Plan To Label China A Currency Manipulator ‘Will Hurt American Business’

By Ben Armbruster on Oct 21, 2012 at 11:23 am

(Photo: Getty)

Romney campaign surrogate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday that the GOP presidential nominee’s plan to label China a currency manipulator “on day one” of his administration is not good policy and that it will “hurt American business”:

RUBIO: I agree with Mitt Romney that China is a currency manipulator. I believe that a trade war is not the best way to approach it and I think that you label them a currency manipulator that’s what it may result. It will hurt American businesses. But I understand his frustration. We may have to do what governor Romney is saying. We may have to label them a currency manipulator but the ideal way to deal with it because we both have a lot to lose here. China has a lot to lose here too in a trade war. It wouldn’t be good for either one of our economies. So hopefully we can avoid that. It may come to that. But I hope we can avoid that.

Watch it:

A recent CAP report came to the same conclusion as Rubio:

Romney says he will label China a currency manipulator on Day 1 of his administration. But he does not say what he will do on Day 2. Declaring China a manipulator is a symbolically hostile gesture, coming as it would before he will have ever met or spoken to any Chinese leader. And yet what this designation requires is entering into talks with Beijing, made all the more difficult by the declaration itself. [...]

Not only is the approach needlessly antagonistic, it is also ineffective. The last thing China’s leaders will do is invite criticism from their own nationalist base by bowing to a hostile, unilateral American demand — even though a more appropriately valued currency will benefit the Chinese economy over the long run.

Rubio isn’t the first Republican to criticize Romney on China. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who has endorsed Romney for president and previously served as U.S. ambassador to China, called Romney’s China policy “wrongheaded” and “typical” campaign rhetoric.

Election

Top Romney Surrogate Says Pay Equity Legislation Is ‘Nothing But An Effort To Help Trial Lawyers’

By Igor Volsky on Oct 21, 2012 at 11:15 am

Mitt Romney’s campaign won’t say if the GOP presidential candidate would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, but on Sunday Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — a top campaign surrogate — disparaged the measure as a giveaway to trail lawyers.

“I think that anyone who’s working out there and making a living, if you’re the most qualified person for the job, you should be able to get paid,” Rubio said. “You should get paid as much as your male counterpart, everyone agrees with that principle”:

RUBIO: But just because they call a piece of legislation an equal pay bill doesn’t make it so. In fact, much of this legislation is in many respects nothing but an effort to help trial lawyers collect their fees and file lawsuits, which may have nothing to do whatsoever to increasing pay equity in the workplace.

Watch it:

In 2009, Congress passed the measure, named after former Goodyear plant manager Lilly Ledbetter, to help ensure that women are not discriminated against in the workplace. After nearly 20 years of working at a plant in Alabama, Ledbetter found out she was being paid far less than her 15 male counterparts and sued. Eventually, the Supreme Court dismissed a jury award in her favor “because she had not initiated legal action within six months of the first instance of discrimination.”

Congress took up a bill to overturn the decision that workers must file a discrimination claim within 180 days of a pay violation, noting that many women don’t learn about the wage disparities for years.

The bill became the first piece of legislation President Obama signed into law. Romney claims to support pay equity, but won’t take a position on the legislation and has touted as model justices the four conservatives who voted against Lilly Ledbetter.

Update

Paul Ryan made a smilar point earlier this week, telling CBS, “Lilly Ledbetter was not an equal pay law. It was about opening up the lawsuits and statute of limitations,” Ryan said. “It wasn’t an equal pay law, and of course, we support equal pay.”

Election

Gingrich Rewrites History, Claims Romney Acted Like Reagan After The Libya Attacks

By Igor Volsky on Oct 21, 2012 at 10:31 am

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich compared Mitt Romney’s knee-jerk reaction to the Libya attacks on the night of September 11 to Ronald Reagan’s handling of the Iranian hostage crisis during the 1980 election, arguing that both men were right to highlight failures in foreign policy.

“I went Friday night to see Argo ,” Gingrich said, referring to a movie about the Iranian hostage crisis. “I was reminded in the Iranian hostage crisis runs 444 days. Should Ronald Reagan not have talked about it for 444 days? Th fact is we were in the middle of a mess in the Middle East, and the mess keeps evolving.” Watch it:

But Gingrich is re-writing history in both counts. Romney’s early statement criticizing the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the Obama administration for failing to condemn violence and “apologizing” for America was premature and misunderstood the basic sequence of events. The embassy issued its initial remarks in an effort to calm protesters and before witnessing any violence. It later retracted its statement and Obama administration officials repeatedly condemned the attackers.

Unlike Romney, Reagan did not accuse then-president Jimmy Carter of sympathizing with terrorists. Instead, during the Iranian hostage crisis, he called for national unity. “This is a difficult day for all of us Americans. … It is time for us…to stand united. It is a day for quiet reflection…when words should be few and confined essentially to our prayers,” he said. And while Reagan did criticize Carter’s foreign policy throughout the campaign, “he refrained from attacking the Iran issue during his debate with the president once he sealed the nomination.”

Security

Top GOP Senator: ‘The Time For Talking’ With Iran ‘Is Over’

By Ben Armbruster on Oct 21, 2012 at 10:21 am

(Photo: Getty)

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the United States should end talks with Iran over its disputed nuclear program. The South Carolina Republican was responding to a question from host Chris Wallace about a New York Times story published last night reporting that the U.S. and Iran have agreed “in principle” for one-on-one negotiations.

But Graham dismissed the notion of talking to Iran. He didn’t outright called for war but he also never presented an alternative to talks, adding later in an extended tirade against the Obama administration that, “nothing is working. The whole region is falling apart”:

WALLACE: What do you think of one on one talks with Iran and what to you make of the timing of this coming out two weeks before the election?

GRAHAM: Well I think the Iranians are trying to take advantage of our election cycle to continue to talk. As we talk with the Iranians whether it’s bilaterally or unilaterally, they continue to enrich. And the vice president and the president said we will do nothing without coordinating with Israel. So we’ve talked with them in Moscow. We’ve talked with them in Baghdad. They continue to enrich. I think the time for talking is over. We should be demanding transparency and access to their nuclear program. They’ve doubled their centrifuges so I think this is a ploy by the Iranians. I hope we’re talking to the Israelis and as we continue to talk, they continue to enrich and they’re trying to break apart the coalition.

Watch it:

The Times report quoted veteran diplomat R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran during the George W. Bush administration, saying, “It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” referring to the one-on-one talks. Burns added, “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?” Yet Graham wants to end talks now.

Graham is right that Iran continues to enrich uranium, which is in violation of United Nations resolutions calling on the Islamic Republic to suspend enrichment. Iran is currently enriching uranium to up to 20 percent purity. But uranium needs to be enriched to 90 percent purity to be used in a nuclear weapon, and according to U.S. and Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran’s leaders have yet to make the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as experts and U.S. officials have said, the international community would know if Iran decides to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity because its nuclear program is continuously monitored by the IAEA.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up