ThinkProgress Logo

Justice

Romney Campaign Chair: Colin Powell Endorsed Obama Because He Is Black

By Ian Millhiser on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:21 pm

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan this evening, Romney Campaign Co-Chair and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R-NH) offered a surprising theory on why General Colin Powell endorsed President Obama for reelection today — because both men are black:

SUNUNU: You have to wonder whether that’s an endorsement based on issues or that he’s got a slightly different reason for President Obama.

MORGAN: What reason would that be?

SUNUNU: Well, I think that when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States — I applaud Colin for standing with him.

For the record, John Sununu is an intelligent and accomplished white man. He has also decided to endorse Mitt Romney, who is white, over Barack Obama, who is black. No one believes that Sununu made this decision for any reason other than the fact that he prefers Romney’s policies to Obama’s, and it would be absolutely inappropriate to suggest that Sununu joined the Romney campaign because he wanted a president of his same race.

Colin Powell is also an intelligent and accomplished man. Suggesting he is unable to see beyond the president’s race is no less insulting.

Update

Sununu releases statement in response to controversy:

Colin Powell is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made, I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President’s policies. Piers Morgan’s question was whether Colin Powell should leave the party, and I don’t think he should.

Update

An astute e-mailer points out that Sununu is an Arab-American of Greek, Lebanese and Palestinian descent, a fact that still provides no more of a window into his decision to endorse Romney than General Powell’s race does into his decision to endorse Obama.

Justice

Air Force Dis-Enrolls Woman For Getting Pregnant Out Of Wedlock

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Oct 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Rebecca Edmonds with her father after being commissioned

Weeks before being commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, Rebecca Edmonds found out she was pregnant. But she was unmarried, so the Air Force removed her from the ranks and accused her of committing fraud because, as Edmonds would learn, single parents are forbidden from enlisting in the Air Force, according ton CNN:

Thirteen weeks into her pregnancy, she was sworn in by her father as a second lieutenant and started making plans to go to Virginia to begin her military service. Nearly six months into her pregnancy, she said, she told her new commanders that she was going to have a child, and they told her they didn’t think it would be a problem.

But they were wrong. Citing a contract she signed in 2007 when she enrolled in ROTC at age 18, the Air Force said she committed a fraud by not reporting a change in her medical condition, as indicated in the contract. [...]

Edmonds said she asked the officer who informed her that she was being ejected from the Air Force, “Had I terminated the pregnancy before my commissioning, would I have been able to commission at that point?” And, according to Edmonds, “He said, ‘Well. Technically, yes.’ That was the hardest part of all of this. Someone telling me to my face that had I gotten an abortion, then I would be eligible for service.”

After she was “dis-enrolled” from the Air Force, Edmonds challenged the decision and appealed to her congressman, Rep. Paul Ryan. According to CNN, Col. Kelly L. Goggins wrote in response to Ryan’s inquiry into the case that Edmonds would have been able to stay in the Air Force if she was married or gave the child up for adoption. Another officer told Edmonds that she would have been able to be commissioned as an officer if she had had an abortion. “That was the hardest part of all of this. Someone telling me to my face that had I gotten an abortion, then I would be eligible for service,” she said.

In a statement to CNN, an Air Force official said non-married service members would never be told to give up their children. Currently, Edmonds’ case is being reviewed “at the highest levels.”

Edmonds’ removal from the military because she refused to give up her child or get married is not the first example of female service members having difficult with the military culture and regulations — two active-duty women were reprimanded after being photographed breastfeeding in uniform. But Edmonds’ mother, Karen Edmonds, said she hoped that when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta praised the end of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and committed “to removing all the barriers that would prevent Americans from serving their country,” that applied to mothers in the military as well.

Economy

How Romney’s Tax Plan Denies $5 Billion In Credits To The Poorest Families

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would provide millionaires with a tax cut of $87,000, even under the very generous assumption that the plan will be paid for (which would require raising taxes on middle class families). At the same time, Romney calls for rolling back expansions of two important tax credits aimed at helping middle-class and low-income families.

First, Romney’s plan calls for repealing an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, meaning that “a two-parent family raising three children on $30,000 of earnings would lose $1,076 a year.” Romney also wants to roll back an expansion of the Child Tax Credit that was included in the 2009 Recovery Act. As the Tax Policy Center explained, “the more generous refundability level enacted in 2009 is critically important for low-income families“:

Of the $38.3 billion in total child credits that TPC estimates families will claim this year, $29.5 billion comes from the 2001 tax law and another $8.8 billion from the 2009 stimulus. Most of the 2001 increase will go to families in the middle income quintile and higher (see chart). Families with the lowest incomes will get less than 3 percent of the 2001 increase. In contrast, fully 60 percent of the benefits from the 2009 changes will go to families in the lowest income quintile.

Of the total $8.8 billion, about $5.3 billion goes to families in the poorest 20 percent of the country. If the expansion expires, “working families earning less than about $13,350 would be ineligible for any child credit, and families with two children wouldn’t qualify for the full credit until their earnings surpass $26,683.” In 2010, the expansion of the Child Tax Credit kept one million people out of poverty.

Alyssa

Five Reasons Idris Elba Would Be Good For The James Bond Franchise

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Oct 25, 2012 at 6:03 pm

The rumors that Idris Elba will follow Daniel Craig as the next James Bond come and go, but they’re back again. I’m obviously in favor of this potential development on the grounds that Idris Elba is awesome (though I also think you could make great cases for David Oyelowo or Chiwetel Ejiofor) and it would give me an excuse to make a lot of “Able was I, ere I saw Elba” jokes. But there are a lot of reasons that it would be great to have a black Bond, and Elba in particular, beyond his simple excellence as an actor:

1. It would clarify that Bond is a rotating identity: James Bond is sort of like that other venerable British pop cultural institution, the Doctor. He’s been around for decades, he’s played by a rotating cast of actors, and there’s not the most rigorous continuity between incarnations, particularly between the old-school ones and the re-imagined version. But unlike the Doctor, Bond doesn’t have a clear means of passing the torch. A black Bond would be a clear break with tradition. The franchise could either nod at what this means for James Bond as an identity unmoored from a single man’s identity (it would explain why M likes Daniel Craig’s Bond more than Pierce Brosnan’s), or come up with a mythology for passing it on to the next man. Either way, this would permanently open up the franchise to different kinds of men, allowing for some experimentation in styles within the basic elements of Bond-dom.

2. It would be a nice reminder white guys aren’t the only people who can be hypercompetent national icons: It’s not as if Will Smith hasn’t been saving American bacon for a long time. But it’s one thing for a black man to be the unexpected savior of the world and for him to be anointed as the best a nation has to offer. It’s past time.

3. It would give Elba a chance to play a lover, as well as a fighter: I’ve written about this before in the context of Luther, but given how good Elba is at playing sensual, passionate, or nailing the contours of a difficult marriage, it’s too bad that so many of his roles have steered him away from being romantic or sexual and strictly towards the commission of a great deal of very stylish violence. Bond girls (or in Eva Green’s case, Bond Women) are an inherent part of the package. It would be lovely to have Elba in particular and a prominent black actor in general get a chance to play one of the world’s most famous seducers in a context where it’s evidence of his awesomeness, rather than a showcase for suspect stereotypes about black men and sexuality.

4. It might encourage the franchise to think more creatively about other elements of the Bond formula: Casino Royale worked so well because it upended almost every element of the excess that marked the Brosnan years: the villain was pegged to actual geopolitical realities, the decisive action sequences went down in a polite casino private room rather than on a grand tableaux, the violence was personal and painful rather than flashy and fake, the woman in question’s brain mattered as much as her breasts. Craig’s helped bring the franchise part of the way into the future. Maybe a black Bond would augur even further exploration of the limits of the formula.

5. It would be interesting to see a slightly older Bond: Daniel Craig remains under contract as Bond for a while, and I’ve seen some suggestions that Elba couldn’t take the role until he turns 46. Part of what was fun about Craig in Casino Royale was that the movie was an origin story about how a callow, confident young spy lost something and gained mastery as a result. It would be fascinating to see a movie that’s self-consciously about a great fighter and great lover entering the period of his decline, sort of a Casanova In Bolzano for the action world.

Security

U.N. Investigator To Probe Legality Of U.S. Drone War

By Zack Beauchamp and Hayes Brown on Oct 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm

A U.N. investigative group is set to examine whether the civilian casualties caused by America’s covert targeted killing campaign are violating international law, according to an official at the organization reported by the Guardian.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur for counterterroism, says his investigation will focus on drone strikes in particular. In Emmerson’s view, the global, indefinite scope of the targeted killing campaign and some of the specific tactics involved may be unlawful under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law:

The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …

[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.

The drone strikes have unquestionably killed civilians, but precise estimates are hotly disputed. This is partly as a consequence of the opacity of Obama administration casualty counts, which, among other things, label “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”

The legality of drone strikes is also a subject of heated debate among experts, including those inside the administration. Some maintain that strikes violate the law because they take place outside of formally declared or authorized war zones, but others disagree, arguing that conflict with non-state actors like terrorist organizations should be evaluated by more permissive legal standards than state-to-state warfare. Evaluating these claims is made more difficult by the Obama administration’s refusal to provide a formal, public legal justification.

It is unlikely that Emmerson’s inquiry itself could derail the administration’s commitment to the targeted killing program. Emmerson’s role was established via a mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Founded in 2006, the Council is charged with investigating and reporting on human rights conditions in all 193 of the United Nations’ Member States. Should Emmerson return a negative report on the U.S. drone program, several actions could be taken. By virtue of the Council’s place in the U.N. system, Emmerson could be called upon to present his findings to the full General Assembly. From there, the G.A. could either issue some form of condemnation of the program or call upon the Security Council to take up the issue.

Neither action is likely to cause much of an impact on the U.S.’ program. The General Assembly is only empowered to make non-binding recommendations to its members, leaving any condemnation symbolic. The United States still maintains enough clout in the Assembly to head off any attempt at condemnation. Likewise, sending the matter to the Security Council will have even less of an effect, as the United States holds the power to veto any of the UNSC’s potentially binding decisions.

A recent investigation by the Washington Post also suggests the Obama administration has no plans to scupper the program, but rather plans to institutionalize it into a long-term “disposition matrix” used to decide which terrorism suspects are to be killed or captured. The administration believes targeted killings have been highly effective in degrading al Qaeda’s ability to strike the United States.

LGBT

Hate Group Appointee To Bullying Task Force Attacks Gay Families With Faulty Study

By Zack Ford on Oct 25, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Bryan Lindquist testifying that the district shouldn't recognize gay youth because homosexuality is a disorder.

Anoka-Hennepin School District has so far stood by its decision to appoint Bryan Lindquist to its anti-bullying task force, even though he belongs to the anti-gay hate group the Parents Action League. The Department of Justice mandated the overhaul of the district’s bullying policies specifically because of its disregard of LGBT students, so Lindquist is a particularly dubious choice. Truth Wins Out noticed that Lindquist penned a letter to the editor for ABC Newspapers this week in which he cites the fraudulent Regnerus study to attack same-sex parenting:

Here are some of his findings that reveal greater child endangerment in same-sex households than households headed by a mom and a dad:

  • Parental pedophilia:  23 percent of children with a lesbian mother reported having been touched sexually by a parent or adult, compared with 2 percent of those raised by biological parents.
  • Higher number of rape cases: 31 percent of children raised by a lesbian mother and 25 percent raised by a homosexual male report that they were forced to have sex against their will, compared to 8 percent from intact families.
  • Suicidal tendencies are shocking: 24 percent of children raised by homosexual men and 12 percent of children raised by lesbian mothers admitted to having recently contemplated suicide, compared to 5 percent of those raised by biological parents or even a single parent.

He concludes:

The social experiment of legalizing same-sex unions will prove disastrous for kids and bring untold dysfunction and damage to children and society.

Of course, the Regnerus study only included two children that were actually raised throughout their childhood in same-sex parented homes, so there is nothing legitimate to substantiate these claims. Clearly, Lindquist has absolutely no problem publicly scorning and stigmatizing gays and lesbians, encouraging people to believe that they are pedophiles and that they harm children. This is the perspective Anoka-Hennepin School Board Chair Tom Heidemann thinks will help protect LGBT youth in their community — he couldn’t be more wrong.

NEWS FLASH

College Costs Increase Again, While Financial Aid Stagnates | According to the College Board, the average cost of private and public college tuition and fees increased by more than 4 percent this year, while financial aid stagnated. Overall, “the net price (the cost after scholarships, grants and federal tax benefits) that in-state students at public colleges will pay this year rose 4.6% to an average of $16,510.” While college costs have sextupled in the last three decades, financial aid hasn’t kept up.

NEWS FLASH

Paul Wellstone’s Legacy: Mental Health Parity | Thursday marks the tenth anniversary of the tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), his wife Sheila, and six others in a plane crash over Eveleth, MN. A bill he championed, requiring that most health insurers cover mental health and addiction treatment the same way they cover physical illnesses, became law in 2008 — named the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 for Wellstone and his one-time Republican Senate colleague. The Wellstone Act was signed by President George W. Bush and implemented by the Obama administration. American Medical Association President Dr. Jeremy Lazarus called the bill “one of the most dramatic improvements in the health care available for people who have mental illness and substance use problems in my lifetime.”

Justice

Judge Halts Montana GOP Candidate’s Plan To Evade Contribution Limits

By Josh Israel on Oct 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT)

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT)

A Montana judge Wednesday halted a plan by former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R), currently his party’s nominee for Montana governor, to evade state campaign finance limits and take a $500,000 contribution from the state Republican Party. The contribution had been made in a brief six-day window when a federal judge’s ruling prohibited Montana from enforcing its limits on campaign contributions — a ruling now on hold, as a federal appeals court determined a challenge to his order was “likely to succeed.”

District Judge Kathy Seeley issued a restraining order, stopping Hill from spending any of the party’s donation and ordering him to cancel any pending ad buys he has made with those funds. She ordered a hearing to consider the case for Monday morning, just eight days before the election. A federal judge also rejected on Wednesday an attempt by the Hill campaign to move the case to federal court.

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell threw out Montana’s campaign contribution limits, writing that they prevent candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.” On October 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed his ruling and later ordered that the state’s campaign finance rules be operative for this year’s election.

The Montana Republican Party opted to use the six-day gap to make a large transfer — $500,000 — from its coffers to Hill’s campiagn. The Hill campaign accepted the money and said it would keep and spend the cash, as it was a legal contribution at the time it was made. Democratic nominee and current Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock filed suit claiming the contribution was still illegal — well over the state’s $22,600 maximum aggregate limit. While the state party could have spent the money on ads of its own rather than contribute it to Hill, federal law allows candidates to buy them at a significantly lower rate.

Election

Chamber Of Commerce Is Spending Millions Supporting Candidates It Pledged To Defeat

By Josh Israel on Oct 25, 2012 at 5:09 pm

U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — which spent nearly $33 million in 2010 to elect a Republican Congress — strongly backed the 2011 Budget Control Act which averted a national debt default and instituted automatic cuts that will go into effect unless Congress reduces federal spending. But while the Chamber’s CEO Tom Donohue reportedly warned Congressional Republicans at the time “we’ll get rid of you,” if they did not agree to a debt ceiling increase, the group has spent millions supporting Republicans who voted against the bipartisan agreement:

1. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). The Chamber spent more than $692,000 on “independent expenditures” helping Akin in his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), with ads attacking both McCaskill and his primary opponent former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (R). The group has not spent any money in support of Akin since his comments that victims of “legitimate rape” are unlikely to become pregnant. Akin explained his opposition to the deal, saying it “fails to address the problem at hand, and it threatens to severely degrade our national defense with a trillion dollars in cuts to our military.”

2. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY). The Chamber has spent at least $185,000 in “independent expenditures” attacking her opponent, former Rep. Dan Maffei (D), and praising Buerkle. The freshman Congresswoman explained her vote against the deal in a statement, saying “There were some good aspects to the bill, but this version also creates several new problems. At the end of the day, I was not satisfied that all my questions and concerns had been answered as to potential negative effects of this bill on the people in my district.”

3. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). The Chamber spent more than $489,000 on “independent expenditures” helping Heller in his re-election bid against Rep. Shelley Berkley (D), with ads endorsing his re-election and attacking her record. Heller said he saw “no strategy” in the compromise and would have preferred a “big deal.”

4. Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-FL). The Chamber spent over $3.8 million on “independent expenditures” helping Mack in his challenge to Sen. Bill Nelson (D), with ads attacking Nelson and urging voters to defeat him. Mack said he didn’t think the American people wanted a deal or “gimmicks.”

5. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). The Chamber has spent more than $1.3 million on “independent expenditures” helping Rehberg in his challenge to Sen. Jon Tester (D), with ads attacking Tester and encouraging voters to defeat him. Rehberg called the deal “little more than business as usual for Washington.”

The Chamber has also spent at least $3.3 million on “independent expenditures” helping Mitt Romney by attacking Barack Obama. While Obama signed the compromise, Romney said he “thought it was a mistake on the part of the White House to propose it” and “a mistake for Republicans to go along with it.”

Older

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

Sign Up