ThinkProgress Logo

Election

GOP Rep. Joe Walsh Says The Country Only Elected President Obama Because He’s Black

By Scott Keyes on Apr 30, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) minced no words at a town hall over the weekend, telling constituents that the only reason President Obama was elected in 2008 was because “he’s our first African-American president.”

Speaking at a town hall in Wheeling, Illinois on Sunday, Walsh gave his view on how to win the upcoming presidential election before launching into his take on the previous one. The House Republican said the country only voted for Obama because “he was a historic figure… our first African-American president.” Walsh noted that other factors helped, including McCain’s age, but argued that Obama “never would have gotten there without his historic nature.”

WALSH: He was a historic figure. He’s our first African-American president. The country voted for him because of that. It made us feel good about [our]self. I’ve said it before, it helped that John McCain was about 142 years old. It helped that the economy was tanking. A lot of these things helped. But he never would have gotten there without his historic nature.

Watch it:

To say that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama benefited from latent prejudices is absurd.

Yet Walsh is using this view to undermine the president’s legitimacy and argue that he was elected not on his merits, but because of his race. Earlier in the town hall, Walsh criticized Obama for not being able to “understand this stuff” (speaking about government spending) because “he was an accidental president.”

Still, Walsh isn’t the only one to espouse this worldview. A recent survey found that “white Americans feel they are more discriminated against than blacks.”

Security

Obama Defends Attack On Romney: ‘I Assumed’ He Meant It When He Said He Wouldn’t Get Bin Laden

By Ben Armbruster on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Mitt Romney and his allies have been attacking President Obama for his campaign’s recent video ad, highlighting both his decision to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and Romney’s statement in 2007 that he would not have taken similar action given the chance. Romney now says he would have done the same as Obama. “Of course [I would have]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” Romney said today.

A reporter asked Obama about the criticism and Romney’s newest statement today during a White House press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. While Obama said it’s “entirely appropriate” to “remember what we as a country accomplished” in getting bin Laden, the President advised that people look at what Romney said in 2007 and ask him why he now says something different:

OBAMA: As far as my personal role and what other folks would do, I just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden. I assumed that people meant what they said when they said it, that’s been at least my practice. I said that we’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggested they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.

Watch it:

Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates — a Republican and a holdover from the Bush administration — said last year Obama’s decision to get bin Laden was a “gutsy call,” adding, “This is one of the most courageous calls — decisions — that I think I’ve ever seen a president make.”

Update

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reports that “by invoking Carter in this fashion, Romney may have effectively undermined his whole argument.”

Justice

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) Fined For Illegal Campaign Contributions

By Josh Israel on Apr 30, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

The first line of Marco Rubio’s biography on his 2010 campaign website claimed that the Florida Republican was “highly regarded for his principled, energetic and idea-driven leadership.” But a newly disclosed settlement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over illegal contributions accepted by his campaign committee has reignited long-standing questions about how “principled’ the freshman Senator’s ethics really are.

On March 19, Rubio and the FEC agreed to a negotiated settlement in which his Senate campaign committee agreed to pay an $8,000 fine to settle charges that it accepted over $210,000 in “prohibited, excessive and other impermissible contributions.” This news was not made public until a POLITICO story this weekend. Perhaps most disturbing is that even after an internal campaign audit, the Marco Rubio for Senate committee failed to address more than $83,000 in improper or misreported donations.

Rubio, who has been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for Mitt Romney, has been in several previous ethical controversies, including:

  • Use of a Florida GOP credit card for personal purposes, many of which were reportedly only reimbursed by Rubio after media inquiries. Rubio’s 2010 campaign dismissed these allegations, saying they were reimbursed at the time.
  • Double-billing of Florida taxpayers for plane travel also billed to the state Republican Party. Rubio’s 2010 campaign claimed these happened without Rubio’s knowledge and were reimbursed.
  • Failure to disclose a $135,000 home equity loan from a bank controlled by political supporters. Rubio, in 2008, said his failure to disclose the loan was “an oversight” and that there was “nothing unusual about the loan or the application.”

    • Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington included Rubio among its “Crooked Candidates” of 2010. And Romney’s own press secretary Andrea Saul, then a staffer for a rival candidate, blasted Rubio in 2010 as “another typical politician who uses his public office for personal gain and only comes clean once caught.”

    Rubio’s office has not yet responded to a ThinkProgress request for comment, nor, according to POLITICO, to their request.

    NEWS FLASH

    At Private Fundraiser, Mitt Romney Tells Donors That Democrats Hate Golf Courses | Mitt Romney attended a fundraiser at the luxurious estate of Papa John’s founder John Schnatter recently, where he told the audience that Democrats don’t believe anyone should own a golf course or a pool. “What a home this is, what grounds these are, the pool, the golf course,” he said. “You know, if a Democrat were here he’d look around and say no one should live like this. Republicans come here and say EVERYONE should live like this. This is a real tribute to America, to entrepreneurship.” Watch it:

    To attend the fundraiser, contributors gave anywhere from $1,000 per person to get into the general reception to $25,000 to be listed as a co-host for the event.

    Update

    Romney recently attacked Obama for golfing. “I must say I scratch my head at the capacity of the president to take four hours off on such a regular basis to go golfing,” he said.

    Security

    Arianna Huffington Defends Mitt Romney On Bin Laden, Calls Obama Ad ‘Despicable’

    By Judd Legum and Ben Armbruster on Apr 30, 2012 at 11:16 am

    In 2007, Mitt Romney injected himself into the Democratic primary campaign and criticized Barack Obama for vowing to go after “high-value intelligence targets” in Pakistan with or without permission. Romney said “I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours.” Here was the August 4, 2007 headline from Reuters:

    In April 2007, Romney said, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” Last May, President Obama ordered the raid that killed bin Laden and last week, the Obama campaign produced a video highlighting the president’s decision, while noting Romney’s 2007 comments.

    The Romney campaign attacked the ad, claiming it was trying to “divide” the country.” And this morning on CBS’s The Early Show, the Romney campaign got an unexpected supporter, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington:

    HUFFINGTON: I agree completely — I agree with the Romney campaign. I think that using the Osama bin Laden assassination, killing the great news that we had a year ago in order to say basically that Obama did it and Romney might not have done it, which is the message. … I don’t think there should be an ad about that. … [T]o turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do. It’s the same thing that Hillary Clinton did with the 3 a.m. call. You know, you are not ready to be commander-in-chief. [...]

    HOST: In a campaign aren’t you supposed to tout the accomplishments of what you’ve done?

    HUFFINGTON: But this is not just what this ad did, does. What the ad does is questions, if we’re talking about the same ad. … It quotes a snippet from Romney in ’07 and uses that to imply that Romney would not have been decisive. There’s no way to know whether Romney would have been as decisive. And to actually speculate that he wouldn’t be is to me not the way to run campaigns on either side.

    Watch the clip:

    Huffington doesn’t seem to think it’s fair to speculate what Romney would have done as president based on what Romney said he would (or in this case wouldn’t) do. But the ad is stating two basic facts. One, that Obama ordered the raid that killed the al-Qaeda leader and two, that Romney said in 2007 that he wouldn’t have done the same. So is it really “despicable” to wonder whether a President Romney would have ordered the raid on bin Laden given that he said he wouldn’t do it while campaigning for president?

    Update

    Romney commented on the issues at a campaign event today:


    Update

    Bush passed on a similar mission to capture “senior members of Al Qaeda” in 2005 because “it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan.”

    Economy

    Romney Adviser Now Claims Auto Rescue Was Actually Romney’s Idea

    By Josh Israel on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Romney Etch a Sketch "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"For months, Mitt Romney has been dogged by a 2008 New York Times op-ed he wrote entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But now, the same adviser who claimed Romney’s extreme views wouldn’t matter in the general election because it will be “almost like an Etch a Sketch” is doing some serious Etch a Sketch-shaking of his own.

    Romney strongly opposed the “bailout” of General Motors, writing: “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.” He doubled down on that in February, saying that his “managed bankruptcy” proposals would have been vastly superior to the Obama administration’s “crony capitalism plan.” Now that the federal intervention by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations has proven a huge success, the Romney campaign is trying desperately to change its tune.

    On Saturday, Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said:

    [Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that… The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice. … The fact that the auto companies today are profitable is because they’ve shed costs. The reason they shed those costs and have got their employee labor contracts less expensive is because they went through that managed bankruptcy process. It is exactly what Mitt Romney told them to do.

    Fehrnstrom has made the same claim before. “Mitt Romney had the idea first,” he said last May. “Mitt Romney argued that instead of a bailout, we should let the car companies go through a restructuring under the bankruptcy laws.” This, of course, flatly contradicts Romney’s February editorial, in which he wrote of Obama’s efforts: “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”

    As industry experts have noted, however, exactly following Romney’s plan would have led to the collapse of the auto industry, since the private sector wasn’t willing to lend GM and Chrysler the money they needed to get to managed bankruptcy. “There was no one that was willing to come up not only with the cash to keep them afloat but also to serve the warranties of everyone, you and I that drive all these cars,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a Romney endorser, said in February. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.”

    Boehner: Romney’s Wealth Won’t Hurt Him Because ‘The American People Don’t Want To Vote For A Loser’

    By Travis Waldron on Apr 29, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has struggled to connect with average voters throughout his campaign, but that won’t hurt him in the general election, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said Sunday.

    Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley whether Romney’s wealth presented him with a “hill to climb” in tough economic times, Boehner said it wouldn’t because “the American people don’t want to vote for a loser”:

    CROWLEY: You know, he comes from a privileged background. You did not come from a privileged background. This is a time — an economic time when people are hurting and have been hurting for quite some time.

    Do you think that someone who is as wealthy as he is, who has had as much privilege as he is, has a hill to climb to overcome that?

    BOEHNER: No. The American people don’t want to vote for a loser. They don’t want to vote for someone that hasn’t been successful. I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to show the American people that they, too, can succeed.

    Romney has consistently reminded voters of his wealth, noting that he is friends with the owners of NASCAR and pro football teams, that his wife has “a couple of Cadillacs,” or that he doesn’t consider $374,000 in speaking fees to be “very much.” That top Republicans consider Americans who don’t enjoy those luxuries losers or unsuccessful, however, may be why its nominee has had such a tough time gaining favor with average voters throughout the 2012 election.

    Two Universities, Two Campaigns, Two Very Different Reactions

    By Adam Peck on Apr 27, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    The Mitt Romney campaign has made a lot of noise about their push for younger voters. Earlier this month, Romney told a crowd that young people “have to” vote for him in November, and in the last several days he has made a point to address issues like college affordability and student loan reform.

    But his message may not be having its desired impact. Romney gave a speech at Otterbein University in Ohio today, and the crowd was…less than enthralled. It did however provide a stark contrast to President Obama’s recent college appearances, including one just yesterday at the University of Iowa. Compare the two events below:

    Economy

    Romney Attacks Stimulus At College That Took Stimulus Funds

    By Travis Waldron on Apr 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney campaigned with Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who presides over one of the least job-creating states in America, today at Otterbein College — a school that benefited from the passage of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the stimulus.

    Otterbein received a grant worth more than $80,000 for a federal work-study program in July 2009. Ignoring that fact, though, Romney proceeded to attack the stimulus in his speech to students:

    ROMNEY: Then there was the stimulus itself. $787 billion of borrowing. It could have been entirely focused on getting getting the private sector to buy capital equipment, for instance. That puts people to work. Or to hire people. Instead, it primary protected people in the governmental sector, which is probably the sector that should have been shrinking.

    Watch it:

    Romney also mixed up the facts about the stimulus. In calling the stimulus a hand out for government programs (which he said “probably should have been shrinking”), Romney ignores that the last three years were the worst on record for government job losses. In calling the stimulus a failure, he ignores its obvious successes: It saved or created millions of jobs, turned around economic growth, and pulled the American economy away from the precipice of collapse.

    Romney’s Advice To Students: Borrow Money From Your Parents

    By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    If you’re young and you want to start your own business, Mitt Romney’s has some advice from you: Borrow money from your parents. At a “lecture” for students at Otterbein University in Ohio today, Mitt Romney told students that, his friend, Jimmy John, started a business by borrowing $20,000 from his parents at a low interest rate. Romney suggested anyone in the audience could do the same:

    This kind of devisiveness, this attack of success, is very different than what we’ve seen in our country’s history. We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.

    Watch it:

    The advice fits right into the characterization that Romney is ‘out of touch’ with regular people. Most students don’t have parents with $20,000 in disposable capital sitting around to give to their kids to start a business.

    At least it’s more than Romney’s surrogates had to offer young people on their youth policy conference call this week.

    Security

    Romney Has No Specific Plan To Address Veterans Issues

    By Ben Armbruster on Apr 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    President Obama announced today at Ft. Stewart in Georgia that he will sign an executive order to protect veterans, members of the military and their families from deceptive and predatory marketing practices by some for-profit higher educational institutions.

    Mitt Romney’s campaign tried to get out front of the news today by issuing press releases suggesting that the president hasn’t done enough for the nation’s veterans. Campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul said:

    “Under President Obama, all Americans have suffered from one of the worst job markets in recorded history — and our nation’s veterans have been among the hardest hit. With more than twelve percent of our most recent veterans struggling to find work and nearly a million veterans unemployed, it’s clear that we need to do more to grow our economy and ensure that those who fight for America can find a job when they return home.”

    Saul didn’t expand on the “do more” part of her critique. The other press release titled “Mitt Romney Will Give Veterans A Chance to Find Good Jobs” links to a page on the campaign website that makes no mention of any plan for veterans.

    And it appears that no plan exists on Romney’s campaign website to address various issues affecting the U.S. military — for example, veterans’ health care and unemployment or, as Obama addressed today, servicemembers’ education. The “Issues” page lists 23 separate issues Mitt Romney has apparently chosen to focus on during his presidential campaign and none is “Veterans” or “Military.”

    It seems like the only outline of any plan Romney has for veterans is to, as he said in a speech to the VFW last August, use “billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy from the defense budget” and “spend it to ensure that veterans have the care they deserve.” He mentioned no specifics.

    Romney announced a Veterans Policy Advisory group back in October to “help to formulate policies that will ensure America keeps its commitments” to veterans but it is unclear what those policies are.

    Romney has even praised President Obama’s veterans initiative to encourage companies to hire veterans, saying last November that “it’s a good idea.”

    On Veterans Day last year, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee did float a plan to privatize the veterans health care system but he was forced to back away from the proposal after swift condemnation from veterans groups.

    Romney has also said he supports Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget proposal. That budget “would cut $11 billion from veterans spending.”

    ThinkProgress asked the Romney campaign if the former Massachusetts governor has a detailed plan to address veterans issues but it did not respond before this post was published.

    On the substance, it doesn’t seem like the Romney campaign has been paying much attention to what the Obama has been doing. CAP’s Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman noted in February that “President Obama has made much progress in tackling veteran unemployment” while urging Congress to pass the president’s $6 billion vets jobs corps program. Last month, Obama announced a housing plan to help military vets who were victims of illegal foreclosures and First Lady Michelle Obama said earlier this month that companies had pledged 15,000 jobs for military spouses as part of the administration’s “Joining Forces” program.

    Despite progress, there is more to be done. The unemployment rate for veterans was at 7.5 percent in March. The jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan war vets during the same month stood at 10.3 percent, “slightly better than in March 2011.”

    • Comment Icon

    Senate Campaign Advised By Top Romney Advisor: Failure To Release Taxes Means You Are ‘Hiding Something’

    By Josh Israel on Apr 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Mitt Romney and Scott Brown

    Very, very dear friends Mitt Romney and Scott Brown

    As he released six years’ worth of tax returns today, Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) campaign predictably launched an attack on his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, for not being as forthright, saying in a press release that she is “clearly hiding something”:

    “By refusing to release her tax returns for 2006 and 2007, she is clearly hiding something. What is in her tax returns during these years that Warren is so afraid voters might learn? In the interest of openness and transparency, Professor Warren has an obligation to release the same information that Scott Brown is making available.”

    But Brown’s “very, very dear friend” Mitt Romney has refused to release more than two year’s worth of his own tax returns. Brown endorsed Romney in 2010, before the former Massachusetts governor even got into the race. And Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, who also dismissed calls for more tax return transparency by saying “we think that’s sufficient,” is also an adviser to Brown.

    If the Brown campaign is to be consistent, it must believe that Romney is “clearly hiding something” in his earlier tax returns that he is “afraid voters might learn.” And “in the interest of openness and transparency,” they would almost certainly say Romney “has an obligation to release the same information” that President Obama has made available — releasing 12 years worth of his tax returns.

    The Brown campaign did not immediately respond to a request from ThinkProgress for his tax returns for 1998 through 2005 — years he served in the Massachusetts state legislature. One wonders if, by his own standard, his decision to release his returns only dating back to 2006 indicates he is “hiding something” he is “afraid voters might learn.”

    • Comment Icon

    Justice

    GOP Billionaire Casino Mogul Sheldon Adelson To Keep Future Political Spending Secret

    By Josh Israel on Apr 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Sheldon Adelson

    Sheldon Adelson (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

    Casino billionaire and right-wing activist Sheldon Adelson has already given at least $10 million to Republican-Allied Super PACs so far this cycle… and he plans to make at least one more Super PAC donation. But, he told Las Vegas Sun political reporter Jon Ralston, after that he plans to keep his massive political spending secret.

    Ralston writes:

    “I’m going to give one more small donation – you might not think it’s that small – to a SuperPAC and then if I give it will be to a c4,” a reference to 501c4 nonprofits, which are tax-exempt and also exempt from disclosures. I opined that surely meant Crossroads, which would allow him to indirectly help Mitt Romney and Sen. Dean Heller [R-NV], who is running against Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]. Berkley used to work for Adelson, but they had a falling out in the mid-1990s and he surely would love to see her lose.

    “Do you know how many c4s there are?” Adelson retorted, as if to try to indicate he had more choices than Crossroads. Indeed. But I can’t think of too many that will influence who controls the White House and the U.S. Senate. And did he telegraph where his money is going with the Rove comments? I think so.

    Adelson also declined to tell Ralston which Super PAC he intended to support with that final “small donation.”

    The casino mogul seemingly conceded that he didn’t want his future political “speech” to be transparent because voters might take that information into consideration when evaluating his message.

    Adelson said he believed the media’s inevitable use of the phrase “casino mogul” whenever his donations became public “is not helpful to the person .”

    So, thanks to the Supreme Court’s stream of rulings against political spending limits and the unwillingness of the Republicans in Congress and on the Federal Election Commission to even mandate disclosure of independent political ad funders, billionaires like Adelson can simply hide their massive donations through (c)(4)s when they get tired of the media and public scrutiny. And rather than letting the voters decide how much credibility to give an ad bankrolled entirely by an anti-union gambling magnate — he can just choose to keep them in the dark.

    While Ralston seems convinced Adelson’s support will go to Karl Rove’s secretive Crossroads GPS, the most famous right-wing (c)(4), the truth is he and we have no idea. Adelson could give the money to former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) American Action Network. Or to the Koch Brother’s Americans for Prosperity. Or some totally unknown 501(c)(4)s that could be collecting hundreds of millions of dollars without any footprint, waiting to pounce with a barrage of shady attack ads. Or, given his billions, all of those.

    • Comment Icon

    Security

    Bolton: NYU Students Laughed At Biden’s ‘Big Stick’ Comment Because They Don’t Trust Obama On National Security

    By Eli Clifton on Apr 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Vice President Joe Biden’s speech critiquing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions has received a range of responses. Dan Senor, a Romney adviser who served as the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, commented that Biden offered a “fantasy narrative” of President Obama’s accomplishments. Another Romney foreign policy adviser, Pierre Prosper, charged that, under the Obama administration, “The United States abandoned its missile defense sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia” — of which the latter dissolved nearly 20 years ago after the fall of the U.S.S.R.

    But the strangest criticism came from former U.N. ambassador John Bolton who claimed that a laugh-line in Biden’s speech showed that New York University (NYU) students, where the speech was delivered, don’t believe the president is strong on foreign policy. Bolton explained to Fox News’ Greta Van Sustern:

    BOLTON: But I thought the best part of it was at one point, trying to appropriate yet another Republican president, Biden said, ‘you have to speak softly and carry a big stick.’ And then he said, ‘I promise you, President Obama has a big stick.’ And the audience broke out laughing, which is some measure of their belief about how assertive Obama is on behalf of our interests internationally.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, it’s — apparently, that’s also going to — that’s made a couple — a lot of — a lot of jokes, too, on the Internet. It is — apparently, that is something that’s not going to go away, at least for a while, for Vice President Biden, that remark.

    BOLTON: Yet another one.

    Watch it:

    It’s unclear if the NYU audience was laughing at, or with, Biden. The Vice President maintained a dead-pan expression during the brief outbreak of laughter.

    Indeed, Van Susteren is correct that the “big stick” comment has generated a great deal of attention, although not all of it negative, on the internet. CBS, ABC, NBC and The Huffington Post all published articles with headlines incorporating the statement “Obama ‘has a big stick,’” in the minutes and hours after the speech was delivered.

    The fact that Bolton interpreted the laughter as a critical response to the administration’s foreign policy doctrine is bizarre considering the former U.N. ambassador’s penchant for bellicose rhetoric when describing his domination-focused foreign policy positions. Last summer, Bolton opined that the U.S. “should be squeezing and disciplining Moscow, not caressing it.”

    • Comment Icon

    GOP Sens. Rubio And Paul Stingy With Contributions From Their Leadership PAC

    By Josh Israel on Apr 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY)

    Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY)

    Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have much in common. Both ran for Senate seats in 2010, both surprised party favorites to become the GOP nominee, and both rode strong Tea Party support to general election wins. Both, but especially Rubio, have been discussed as possible vice presidential candidates for presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

    And, a ThinkProgress analysis reveals, both have newly established leadership PACs have have been very miserly with their support of other candidates.

    In recent years, it has become typical for politicians elected to Congress to establish leadership PACs, which they use to make contributions to other candidates for office. So in March of 2011, two months after taking office, Rand Paul’s Reinventing A New Direction (RANDPAC) was organized. Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC followed suit that August. RANDPAC’s website says its mission is “support and elect Pro-Liberty, Pro-Constitution candidates in Kentucky and across the country,” and its Facebook page says it is “dedicated to helping elect fiscally and Constitutionally responsible individuals to the U.S. Senate and to lowering our National Debt.” In a video on the Reclaim America website, Rubio says the PAC aims to “help and assist like-minded candidates who want to come here and serve in the House, in the Senate, or maybe even in the White House to make a difference for America’s future.”

    So did they? By the end of 2011, Paul’s RANDPAC had already raised $173,031 and Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC had collected $563,390. By that time, neither PAC had given a dime to another federal candidate.

    The latest filings by the committee reveal that in 2012, each has made a very small number of contributions to political candidates — but has spent only a fraction of a percent on direct support for political candidates, through March 31.

    Read more

    • Comment Icon

    Memo Accidentally Sent To Reporters Shows Candidate’s Damage Control After Saying Obama May Be Muslim

    By Alex Seitz-Wald on Apr 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    A public relations consultant working for Republican businessman Dave Spence, running for governor of Missouri, accidentally sent reporters an internal briefing memo today instead of a press release. The memo, prepared for an upcoming interview, instructed Spence on how to respond to a variety of topics, including questions about Obama’s religion. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports:

    In it, she offered Spence advice in case he was approached by reporters quizzing him on topics such as his recent suggestion that he didn’t know whether or not Obama is a Muslim.

    “This is not an issue that I felt was pertinent to my candidacy for governor and expressed those sentiments,” Briggs offered as a potential answer. “However, if the media insists that this is a critical issue that must be addressed, I will be clear. President Obama says he is a Christian, and I take him at his word.”

    The consultant felt the need to prep Spence on the unusual issue since just last Friday the candidate questioned Obama’s religion.

    In an interview with the editorial board of the St. Louis American, an African-American news weekly, Spence was asked, “Is Barack Obama a Muslim?” The gubernatorial candidate responded, “I don’t know.” “Spence had spent whatever credibility he had for any consideration for an endorsement from The American. Barack Obama, as anyone knows who follows the news, is a church-going Baptist,” the American wrote.

    Spence has faced weeks of bad press after it was reported that he voted against paying the U.S. Treasury back the $40 million in bailout funds lent to the bank whose board he sits on. It also came out that Spence employs a lawyer being investigated for facilitating illegal campaign donations.

    Earlier, Spence was caught claiming he had a degree in economics. It turns out the degree was in home economics.

    • Comment Icon

    Security

    Romney Camp Attacks Obama Administration For Honest Discussion Of Iran Attack Consequences

    By Ali Gharib on Apr 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    On a campaign call just ahead of Vice President Joe Biden’s foreign policy speech today, top foreign policy advisers to presumtive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney attacked the Obama administration’s Iran policy. While emphatically denying that the Romney campaign was threatening Iran with an attack, his advisers Dan Senor and Alex Wong admonished the administration for an honest discourse about what the potential consequences of an attack would be.

    Asked by a reporter about Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s comments last week that the Obama administration-led U.N. sanctions program on Iran have been “effective,” the Romney advisers said:

    DAN SENOR: (T)he administration has gone out of its way to convey that the military option is not serious. I mean, just look at the things Secretary [of Defense Leon] Panetta has said over the last year, whether it was at the Halifax conference, whether it was the Saban conference at Brookings… He went out of his way to talk about how disastrous military action against Iran would be for the United States, for the global economy, for the region. …

    ALEX WONG: The administration has repeatedly talked down the military option and the effectiveness and the (inaudible) of the military option by the united states and Israel.

    Listen to a clip of the call here:

    Romney’s advisers offer, at best, misleading interpretations of Obama administration policies and statements; at worst, they make claims unsupported by the facts. For example, far from “project[ing] to the world that the military option against Iran is off the table,” Obama has said again and again that all options remain “on the table” to deal with a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program. A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, though U.S. and Israeli intelligence have not concluded that Iran has made a decision to pursue a weapon.

    Read more

    • Comment Icon

    Climate Progress

    FACT CHECK: Americans For Prosperity Announces $6.1 Million Ad Buy To Push Totally False Green Jobs Claims

    By Stephen Lacey and Rebecca Leber on Apr 26, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Update

    Both Politifact and the Washington Post Fact Checker have given the ad their worst ratings of “pants on fire” and four Pinocchios, respectively. Politifact found all three examples used to be false, with the ad stringing together “alarming” soundbites that are “ultimately ridiculous.” And the Washington Post writes “there is no excuse for these kinds of ads, which take facts out of context or simply invent them.”


    After pouring more than $8.4 million into bogus energy attack ads since November, the oil industry front group Americans For Prosperity announced yet another major ad buy of $6.1 million in eight states.

    The latest ad is based on a set of mistruths about green jobs that have been widely debunked.

    In the ad, AFP explains that “billions of taxpayer dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries,” and uses four examples that supposedly prove that Obama’s clean energy stimulus created foreign jobs instead of domestic ones.

    All four examples are either mostly or completely false.

    1. The ad claims that $1.2 billion is being used to create solar jobs in Mexico. This point was completely made up by a random conservative blogger and has been repeatedly called out as a lie. This $1.2 billion loan guarantee was issued for a large, first-of-its-kind solar plant in California being developed by NRG. However, the blogger falsely wrote that the money was being used to create manufacturing jobs in Mexico.

    In reality, the jobs created in Mexico had absolutely nothing to do with the loan guarantee. The only connection to Mexico was that some of the solar panels would be coming from a manufacturing plant located there. And even though the source of the panels had nothing to do with the decision to issue the loan guarantee, the company providing the panels, SunPower, explained that most of the panels were coming from America anyway.

    2. The ad claims that a loan guarantee for an electric vehicle manufacturer went to jobs in Finland. This is also a made up story pushed by Fox News and conservative bloggers. In fact, all of the money used through the loan guarantee went toward building a U.S. manufacturing facility.

    There were some jobs created in Finland during final assembly of the vehicles, but that was announced up front in 2009 when the loan guarantee was issued. According to the Department of Energy, all of the money set aside for Fisker’s next-generation vehicle manufacturing was issued for American operations.

    Read more

    • Comment Icon

    Security

    Romney Adviser Falsely Claims Obama Isn’t Leading In Combating Pirates

    By Ben Armbruster on Apr 26, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    President Obama congratulates Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on successful pirate raid

    Today on a press call with Mitt Romney’s campaign foreign policy advisers, former Navy Secretary during the Reagan administration and now Romney adviser John Lehman claimed that American allied military leaders around the world are telling him that under President Obama, the United States is no longer leading in world affairs. As one piece of evidence, Lehman cited the Obama administration’s policies in combating piracy:

    LEHMAN: I think the biggest concern when I talk to my former counterparts and current military leaders in — among our allies in Europe and the Pacific is, the theme that they — I keep hearing from them is, Why is the United States under Obama abdicating leadership or keeping stability in the world? … And they see our abdication of leadership in for instance dealing with the pirates. We were not in a leadership position and that’s opened up a very attractive opportunity for the Russians and even the Chinese have two ships out there.

    Listen to the clip:

    Absent in Lehman’s argument of course is the fact that, according to data released just this week, sea piracy worldwide has declined 28 percent in the first quarter of the year and, as the AP reported, “attacks fell sharply in Somalia’s waters thanks to international naval patrols.” And which country has a “large” naval presence there? The United States.

    “When the Obama administration came to office the problem of piracy off the coast of Somalia was snowballing out of control,” Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro said recently at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress, “through the collective effort of the United States, the international community, and the private sector, we are now seeing signs of clear progress.” Shapiro continued:

    The numbers clearly demonstrate this. In 2011, the number of successful pirate attacks fell by nearly half. As a result, there has been a significant drop in the numbers of ships and crew held hostage. In January 2011, pirates held 31 ships and 710 hostages. In early March of 2012 pirates held eight ships and 213 hostages – a roughly 70 percent decline. This is still way too many, but it is clear advances are being made.

    “The Obama administration has pursued a strategy that seeks to leverage all elements of U.S. power” to combat piracy, Shapiro added, which comprises an integrated multi-dimensional approach that includes diplomatic engagement, expanding security at sea, preventing attacks and debilitating piracy networks.

    Also absent from Lehman’s argument? Obama’s order in 2009 for a successful Navy SEALS operation to take out pirates holding an American ship captain hostage, nor his most recent order for U.S. special ops forces to rescue an American and a Danish hostages from pirate-affiliate kidnappers.

    • Comment Icon

    Climate Progress

    Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

    By Joe Romm on Apr 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    A new national survey confirms strong public support for funding renewable energy research, regulating carbon pollution, and signing a global treaty to slash emissions. The study, conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found a remarkable 75% of Americans support “regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant.”

    The survey’s results are counter to widely held assumptions among the media and politicians, but consistent with recent polling. The poll found:

    • 63 percent of Americans support “signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050“!
    • By a margin of 3 to 1 — 61 percent to 20 percent — Americans say they would be more likely to vote for a political candidate who supports a “revenue neutral” tax shift, increasing taxes on fossil fuels, and reducing the federal income tax by an equal amount.
    • 61 percent said they support holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for “hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.”
    • By 3 to 1 — 58 percent to 17 percent — Americans say “protecting the environment … improves economic growth and provides new jobs” vs those who say it “reduces economic growth and costs jobs.”
    • Asked “When there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, which do you think is more important?” an amazing 62 percent supported “protecting the environment, even if it reduces economic growth” vs. 38 percent who backed “Economic growth, even if it leads to environmental problems.”

    Of course, the conflict that arises between the kind of environmental protection progressives support and economic growth only exists because of a narrow definition of economic growth whereby GDP doesn’t take into account the harm caused by pollution to humans and a livable climate (see Economists concluded “Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added” and natural gas damages are larger than its value added for even low CO2 prices). Since the vast majority of the non-Tea-Party public understand this, that’s no doubt one reason they strongly support pricing or taxing pollution.

    Here are some charts from the study:

    Read more

    • Comment Icon

    Older

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

    Sign Up