ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Horses, Bayonets And Why Romney’s Navy Critique Makes No Sense

(Photo: AP)

During tonight’s foreign policy presidential Mitt Romney repeated his attack on President Obama for the U.S. Navy and Air Force being smaller than they were in 1917 and 1947 respectively. This is a “pointless” comparison, as CNN noted recently, explaining that it’s “wrong to assume that fewer ships translates to a weaker military” or fighters for that matter “[b]ecause of the technological supremacy of current Navy ships, the military can get more from each one than it did even 10 to 15 years ago.”

Obama pointed this out during the debate:

OBAMA: But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting slips. It’s what are our capabilities

Watch the clip:

In other words, 1,000 1940s-era fighter planes combined can’t do what one of today’s B-2 Stealth bomber can do, the same for Navy ships in 1917 versus today.

The Washington Post fact checker agreed with CNN. “This is a nonsense fact.” Factcheck.org noted it’s “a meaningless claim.”

NEWS FLASH

Presidential Candidates Avoid Climate For First Time In Nearly 25 Years | For the first time since 1988, presidential candidates did not mention the issue of climate change during debates.

Even as the world has seen 331 consecutive months with global temperatures over the 20th century average, even as extreme weather gets more intense and expensive, even as the Arctic sees unprecedented melt of sea ice, and even as scientists issue dire warnings about an approaching climate “tipping point,” the issue got no mention at all within three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

At the end of tonight’s foreign policy debate, CBS’ Bob Scheiffer got the closest of anyone to the issue: “What do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country?” he asked.

Alas, nothing from the candidates on climate — an issue that experts say will be a central driver of foreign policy over the coming decade.

Nostalgic for a time when climate change was a serious issue for candidates? Watch the video compilation below:

Politics

ThinkProgress Liveblogs The Final Presidential Debate

Welcome to ThinkProgress’ live coverage of the final presidential debate, hosted by Lynn University, in Boca Raton, Florida.

We’ll fact-check both candidates’ claims in real time and offer a wide range of multimedia content. Tonight’s debate is moderated by Bob Schieffer, host of CBS’ Face the Nation, and will focus on foreign policy. This is the 23 (and final) debate of the 2012 election.

LATEST UPDATE
10:40 pm

Romney used to be 'severely conservative'

Romney closed the debate tonight talking about his time as Massachusetts governor and his ability to “reach across the aisle.” Now that we’re so close to the election, Romney is trying to show how moderate he is, but that’s a big change in tune from a few months ago when we was trying to convince Americans he was “severely conservative.”

10:37 pm

Fox News admits Romney couldn't differentiate his policies

Anchor Bret Baier conceded that Romney “perhaps struggled” to explain how his foreign policy would be different from Obama’s. Megyn Kelly suggests that it may be part of his larger plan.

10:35 pm

The U.S. is not like Greece

During his closing statement, Romney said that the U.S. is headed down a path like that of Greece. But Greece, contrary to popular belief, had a revenue problem rather than a spending problem. While its spending was high compared to US standards — 50.4 percent of GDP compared to 38 percent of GDP in the US — its spending was average among European nations. As CAP’s Michael Linden and Sabina Dewan note, “Over the past 10 years, Greece has consistently spent less, as a share of GDP, than the European Union as a whole.” However, it generated less that 40 percent of GDP from revenue — one of the lowest rates in the EU.

10:34 pm

Obama campaign already bought CavalryMenForRomney.com

http://www.cavalrymenforromney.com

10:34 pm

Schieffer ends the debate by quoting his mom

“Go vote, it makes you feel big and strong,” she said.

Read the full live blog

Security

Minutes Before Foreign Policy Debate, Romney Adviser Struggles To Articulate Iran Policy

Romney foreign policy adviser Dan Senor struggled to differentiate the GOP presidential candidate’s foreign policy towards Iran from President Obama’s during an appearance on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report, just an hour and a half before the final presidential debate focusing on foreign policy.

Asked directly by host Larry Kudlow about whether Romney would engage in direct one-on-one negotiations with Iran, Senor responded that the former Massachusetts governor would keep all options on the table — just as Obama has promised to do — and did not say if he’d agree to direct talks:

KUDLOW: Let me ask you, Dan Senor, for the record. If Governor Romney were president, would he take a one-on-one meeting with Iran?

SENOR: Look, here is Governor Romney’s approach to Iran: Obviously he wants a diplomatic solution to the Iranian situation. As we said, they are getting closer to closer to nuclear bombs, and we have to deploy a whole range of tools and tactics, economic pressure, diplomatic isolation. Got to make sure that the military threat, that option is credible in the eyes of the Iranians, not that we would use it but that they think it’s credible and diplomatically in terms of engagement. There are a whole range of tools and the governor has said he wouldn’t rule any of those tools out. He doesn’t want to reward bad behavior by the Iranians. Wants to know what the Iranians are sincere to make any decision.

KUDLOW: I’m not sure what the difference is. I’m not sure what the difference is. You’re two both distinguished gentlemen. I’m not sure where the difference is, at least on Iran. [...]

SENOR: The problem is mixed messages. He’s sent mixed messages and lost credibility in negotiating with Iran. Governor Romney will not send mixed messages. He’ll be much tougher.

Watch it:

Since the New York Times reported that Obama has agreed in principle to participate in one-on-one negotiations with Iran, Romney’s team has repeatedly refused to say if he would engage in such talks if he’s elected president in November. The administration has also denied the Times’ claims, but has maintained its policy of being open to direct negotiations.

But judging from Senor’s answer, Romney may also struggle to differentiate his approach towards Iran from Obama’s. Indeed, the Obama administration has repeatedly declared that the military option is on the table, and has built up America’s military presence in the Persian Gulf to act as a check against Iran.

Obama has also applied “intense external pressure” on Iran, signing into law tough sanctions that Romney himself supports. The policy has curbed the country’s oil exports “by more than 1 million barrels a day” and as the New York Times reported, the sanctions “have severely depressed the value of its national currency, the rial, causing higher inflation and forcing Iranians to carry ever-fatter wads of bank notes to buy everyday items.”

Security

CNBC Host Accuses Obama Of Manipulating Libya Facts To Cut Military Spending

Maria Bartiromo.

It’s no secret that the American right believes that President Obama refused to call the Benghazi attack “terrorism” for political purposes even after Candy Crowley debunked the meme on national TV during the presidential debate. But CNBC host Maria Bartiromo took the meme to a whole new level today, accusing the President of attempting to drum up support for cuts to military spending at home — an assertion which her guest, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), pivoted off of rather than challenged:

BARTIROMO: Senator, I don’t understand. This whole Benghazi story boggles the mind. I mean, It was September 11th. The embassies were burned, our ambassador was murdered. The Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA told the President for ten days in his daily briefings that we could see an attack on the U.S. consulate and there was [sic] the result of protests. Why would the President not call it out for what it was on day one? Why wait so long to tell the American people that it was a terrorist attack? Is it to justify defense cuts? To make everybody believe since bin Laden is dead, everything’s quiet on the home front? I don’t even understand why the President of the United States would not call it what it was from day one.

MCCAIN: I think primarily it was this narrative that the President has been saying for so long that he got bin Laden, which we all appreciate, but then that al-Qaeda is on the run.

Watch it:

Bartiromo’s framing answers her own question (and refutes McCain’s response): aside from three clear references to “acts of terror” directly after the attack, the reason Obama wasn’t out front blaming al-Qaeda or another group was because, as Bartiromo notes, the CIA was telling him it was the video and that there’s scant evidence al-Qaeda was responsible.

President Obama’s plan for military spending is supported by top Pentagon brass, while Governor Romney’s plan ups military expenditures by an unnecessary and unpaid-for $2.1 trillion.

NEWS FLASH

ThinkProgress Will Liveblog Tonight’s Presidential Debate | ThinkProgress will liveblog the final presidential debate, starting at 8:45 PM. Stay tuned for our reporting and real-time fact checking. But as we wait for President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney to take the stage, here are 5 facts you should commit to memory and a timeline of Romney’s evolving positions on foreign policy. The debate is now live here.

Justice

Marijuana ‘Green Rush’ Not As Sheltered From Federal Prosecution As 60 Minutes Suggests

Sunday’s 60 Minutes showcased the burgeoning success of Colorado’s medical marijuana industry, dubbed the “green rush.” Entrepreneurs have moved to the state to get in early on the potential cash cow, the state is bringing in new tax dollars, and Denver now hosts more than three times as many dispensaries as Starbucks and McDonalds combined.

But while the state’s industry is illegal under federal law and the Department of Justice is “not happy” with state laws legalizing medical marijuana, the segment suggests that federal prosecution is “not an issue,” pointing to Deputy Attorney General James Cole’s directive to U.S. attorneys “not to waste resources prosecuting patients or caregivers that are in clear compliance with state medical marijuana laws.”

Watch it:

The reality is that federal crackdowns are an issue in a number of the 17 states that have medical marijuana laws, and to some extent even in Colorado.

Prominent prosecutions of other arguably state-compliant dispensaries include a now-pending action against the country’s largest dispensary, Harborside Health Center in Oakland and San Jose, Calif. The city of Oakland itself is so supportive of the dispensary that it recently filed a lawsuit against the federal government challenging its crackdown of the facility. But that hasn’t stopped federal prosecutors from going forward with challenges intended to disable the facility.

Just last month, the Department of Justice took its crackdown to Los Angeles, filing complaints against three dispensaries and issuing warning letters to 67 others. And in Montana, a 2011 raid of 26 dispensaries has made criminals of the former owners of a Montana medical marijuana dispensary founded by the man who helped draft and secure passage of the state’s medical marijuana law, and who went into the dispensary business to provide a model for compliance with state law. He and his partners provided frequent tours of the facility to lawmakers and law enforcement officials.

These crackdowns are explained in part by the fact that Cole’s directive to U.S. attorneys is not as broad as 60 Minutes’ Scott Kroft suggests. While Cole does discourage prosecutions of state-compliant “patients and caregivers,” the word “caregivers” has, since a 2011 change in policy, been interpreted narrowly not to include “commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana” such as those thriving in Colorado. During the segment, Cole described the DOJ’s position more generously:

Our focus is really on keeping it away from children. Our focus is keeping out of the hands of organized crime. Our focus is making sure that people aren’t through marijuana dispensaries using it as a pretext to do large-scale interstate drug dealing. These are the areas where we’re really trying to focus.

The prosecutions in Colorado have honed in on those dispensaries that they perceive as a risk to children because of their close proximity to a school. But it is not clear how some of the DOJ’s recent prosecutions and warnings in other states are tailored to Cole’s stated goals.

The dearth of prosecutions in Colorado is in part explained by the large number of dispensaries relative to limited DOJ resources. And the 60 Minutes segment does make clear that the Justice Department has used other tools to curb dispensaries, including threatening prosecution for financial institutions who do business with dispensaries. But at the local level, Boulder DA Stan Garnett tells 60 Minutes that you can’t even find a jury that will convict a marijuana defendant, given the state’s widespread support for decriminalization. Many jurors are implementing a practice known as jury nullification, meaning that they vote not to convict those charged with federal marijuana law violations even if they think they’ve committed the act, in protest of the law itself. This public support for marijuana decriminalization is also reflected in polls on the ballot initiatives to legalize even recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

“This community has made it very clear that criminal enforcement of marijuana is not something they want me to spend any time on,” Garnett said.

Health

Republican Congressman Responds To Meningitis Outbreak: ‘I Don’t Think You Need More’ Regulation

Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH)

CONWAY, New Hampshire — A New England congressman from nearby the source of the ongoing meningitis outbreak dismissed calls for more regulation on the industry at a debate Thursday.

Freshman Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) was asked during a forum in northern New Hampshire whether the meningitis outbreaks demonstrates that the pharmaceutical industry actually needs more regulation to prevent similar problems in the future. “If your question is do you need more regulation, I don’t think you need more,” Guinta said.

MODERATOR: Number two, when you look at the kind of disastrous results that come from the pharmaceutical industry’s compounding organization that created this meningitis problem across America, and those are very unregulated operations, doesn’t America actually need more regulation to protect us from bad actors, as you pointed out?

GUINTA: If your question is do you need more regulation, I don’t think you need more. What you need is the existing regulatory agencies to actually do their jobs properly. We know what the basic rules are, what the basic laws are. They need to be utilized in such a way where the bad actors are identified.

Watch it:

As of publication time, 23 people have died from the outbreak and 14,000 Americans were exposed to tainted steroid injections from a pharmaceutical company in Framingham, Massachusetts, less than 50 miles from Guinta’s district.

Despite the freshman congressman’s opposition, this meningitis episode highlights the need for stronger FDA regulations to prevent a repeat in the future. Because of the particular nature by which the steroid injections were created — a practice called compounding — the FDA lacks authority to oversee the process and ensure safety. Democratic lawmakers are pushing to strengthen the FDA’s oversight capacity, but congressmen like Guinta are signalling that such efforts could be blocked.

Still, Guinta is not entirely alone in his refusal to call for new regulations on the pharmaceutical industry. Earlier this month, Fox News said the outbreak actually demonstrates the need for less government regulation.

Economy

How A Rule Reining In Risky Trading Makes Banks Less Profitable, But Safer

A new regulation meant to prohibit federally-insured banks from engaging in risky trading practices will cost the nation’s largest financial institutions more than twice as much as originally estimated, according to a new analysis by ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. But the rule would also make those banks less of a risk to the U.S. economy, S&P found.

The Volcker Rule, which will keep banks that are backed by taxpayers from engaging in the risky proprietary trading that played an outsized role in bringing down the financial market four years ago, will cost the nation’s eight largest banks up to $10 billion in annual profits, two-and-a-half times as much as S&P estimated in 2010:

We currently estimate that the Volcker rule could reduce combined pretax earnings for the eight largest U.S. banks by up to $10 billion annually, up from our initial $4 billion estimate two years ago,” S&P said today in a statement announcing a new report on the issue.

Still, that will hardly put a dent in their collective profits. The eight banks — JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, Citigroup, and PNC — earned more than $63 billion in combined profits in 2011 as Wall Street continued to rebound from the financial crisis. JP Morgan ($19 billion) and U.S. Bank ($4.9 billion) each posted record profits last year; Wells Fargo ($15.9 billion) and Citigroup ($11.3 billion) joined JP Morgan as the three banks to earn more than $10 billion in profits individually.

And, as S&P noted, less risky trading will lead to safer banks. “The implementation of the Volcker rule could have favorable implications for the credit profiles of some of the largest U.S. banks, such as reducing trading portfolio risk,” S&P said. “This risk mitigation could lessen revenue and earnings volatility, which we would view favorably.”

Wall Street has attempted to water down the Volcker Rule since its insertion into the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act in 2010. They were successful in lobbying for a loophole that allowed them to continue some risky trading practices, and since the law’s passage, the banks have attempted to make the rule even more tepid. Regulators are scheduled to finalize the proposed rule by the end of this year.

Older

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

Sign Up