ThinkProgress Logo

Election

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

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.

Security

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

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

Climate Progress

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

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

Security

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

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.

Climate Progress

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

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

NEWS FLASH

Allen West: Barney Frank ‘Should Be In A Pink Jumpsuit’ | According to Robert Draper’s new book on Congress, Do Not Ask What Good We Do, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) once told openly-gay retiring Congressman Barney Frank that he should wear a “pink jumpsuit.” Via Dave Weigel:

When Barney Frank mocks the Republicans for a marathon series of amendment votes, West calls him “a guy who for all practical purposes should be in a pink jumpsuit for what he did.”

Georgia Rep. Gingrey (R) Denounces ‘African-Americans For Obama’ Group: ‘It Really Is Worse Than Sad’

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) lambasted President Obama this week for creating a voter outreach group called “African-Americans for Obama,” calling the move “worse than sad.”

Gingrey’s comments came on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show Tuesday. The host attacked Obama’s campaign for creating the group, speculating that if presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney created a group called “White Folks for Romney,” “the country would go bananas!” Gingrey agreed, going on to accuse Obama of using “African-Americans for Obama” to “create divisiveness” and pit “one race against the other.” “It really is worse than sad,” Gingrey declared:

LIDDY: President Obama [made] a speech in which he forms an organization he calls “African Americans for Obama”. Can you imagine what the hue and cry would be if Mitt Romney got up and said, “I’m organizing white folks for Romney.” The country would go bananas!

GINGREY: Well they absolutely would. I would like to think in 2012, thinking back to 1965 and the Civil Rights Act and everything that has occurred to improve race relationships, that we would be over most of that racial divide. I guess you always have some prejudices that exist in the minds and hearts of certain individuals. To use it as a political tool to get out the base is sad. It really is worse than sad. President Obama is going to get 95% if not more of the African American vote and I can understand that. I think we all can understand that. To use that and to go out and try to create divisiveness or one race against the other, it’s not just that, it’s one gender against the other, male versus female. I’m sick of all that and I think the American people are too.

 

Gingrey didn’t have a problem in 2008 when John McCain announced his “Hispanics for McCain” leadership team. Nor did he say anything in 2004 when President Bush created “African-Americans for Bush.” Same in 2000 with “Arab Americans for Bush/Cheney,” “Women for Dole” in 1996; “Asian Americans for Bush/Quayle” in 1992; and “Hispanics for Bush” in 1988.

Indeed, only now that a black president would have the audacity to create an outreach group geared towards African-Americans does Gingrey take offense.

Update

In 2008, Gingrey’s own campaign had no problem pitting “one gender against the other” when they embraced the “Women for Gingrey” outreach group.

Security

Romney Foreign Policy Adviser Attacks Obama’s ‘Czechoslovakia’ Policy

Romney Foreign Policy Adviser Ambassador Pierre Prosper

Later today, Vice President Biden is expected in a speech to open up an attack on Mitt Romney’s foreign policy saying that a President Romney will take America back to the George W. Bush era. “Gov. Romney is counting on our collective amnesia,” Biden said according to excerpts already released.

The Romney campaign organized a conference call today with three of Romney’s foreign policy advisers to push back. During the call, Romney adviser Ambassador Pierre Prosper attacked President Obama for dealing with Russia, albeit using geographical terms from the Cold War era:

PROSPER: The United States has become a spectator on issues of national security. We’ve also been embarrassed by North Korea where again it continues to be a conciliatory leaning forward approach and yet the North Koreans will launch a missile surprising the United States by violating their agreement.

You know Russia is another example where we give and Russia gets and we get nothing in return. The United States abandoned its missile defense sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia, yet Russia does nothing but obstruct us, or efforts in Iran and Syria.

Listen to the clip from the conference call:

Aside from the fact that “Czechoslovakia” broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia nearly 20 years ago, the Obama administration never “abandoned” missile defense sites because they were never there to begin with. Back in 2009, Obama decided to replace plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and, as one expert noted at the time, “replac[e] it with a more technologically-promising” one.

And as for getting nothing from Russia, the Obama administration spearheaded an effort to apply tougher sanctions on Iran in 2010 and in June of that year, Russia voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed a fourth round of tough sanctions on Iran. Last year, a U.N. panel said those sanctions “are constraining Iran’s procurement of items related to prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile activity and thus slowing development of these programs.”

Education

Missouri GOP Rep. Says Federal Student Loans Gave America ‘Stage Three Cancer Of Socialism’

Under pressure from President Obama and Senate Democrats, House Republicans unveiled their plan to prevent a scheduled hike in interest rates on federal student loans Wednesday, but they probably won’t be counting on the support of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin (R).

At a debate over the weekend, Akin, who is running for Senate, said involving the government in the student loan process has given the government a “stage three cancer of socialism”:

AKIN: America has got the equivalent of the stage three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in. So first, to answer your question precisely, what the Democrats get rid of the private student loans and take it all over by the government was wrong, it was a lousy bill, and that’s why I voted no. The government needs to get its nose out of the education business.

Akin isn’t the first Republican to come out against student loans recently, nor is he the first to make the false claim that the government “took over” the student loan process. The reform plan passed by Democrats as part of the health care overhaul did not take over the private student loan industry — as Akin surely knows, there is still a large private student loan industry. Instead, it removed banks from the process that was already managed by the federal government.

Obama used a speech at the University of Iowa to mock Akin yesterday. “You’ve got one member of Congress who compared these loans, I’m not kidding here, to a stage three cancer of socialism,” Obama said. “Stage three cancer? I don’t even know where to start. What do you mean? What are you talking about? C’mon. Just when you think you’ve heard it all in Washington, somebody comes up with a new way to go off the deep end.”

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

Sign Up