ThinkProgress Logo

Election

Romney Loses Cool With Local Reporter: ‘Aren’t There Issues Of Significance You’d Like To Talk About?’

Mitt Romney displayed a flash of tempter during an interview with a local CBS affilate in Denver today, interrupting and scolding a reporter for asking questions about same sex marriage and civil unions, the DREAM Act, and medical marijuana. Romney fielded several questions about gay marriage in light of President Obama’s historic announcement today, but after a series of questions on the issue and the DREAM Act, CBS 4 reporter Shaun Boyd asked Romney about his stance on medical pot, which is legal in Colorado, and Romney bristled, suggesting that the issues weren’t of “significance.”

“Aren’t there — aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about?” he said, cutting off her question. “This is a significant issue in Colorado,” she replied. “We’ve got enormous issues that we face, but you want talk about — go ahead — you want to talk about marijuana?” Romney said, sounding a bit exasperated. Romney explained that he wanted to talk about national issues like the economy and Iran. Watch it:

While Romney’s popular image is that of a staid, almost robotic businessman, his temper has flared up publicly on occasion. His own family has a term for these moments: “Mitt-frontations.”

LGBT

Romney’s Timid Response To Obama’s Marriage Endorsement: ‘I Know Other People Have Differing Views’

At a press conference in Oklahoma this afternoon, presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney responded to President Obama’s historic endorsement of marriage equality. But instead of attacking Obama for supposedly undermining the institution of “traditional marriage,” or for “flip-flopping” on his position, as many conservatives already have, Romney just restated his own “preference” and said it would be up to others to decide if Obama had changed his mind.

“My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and women, and that’s my own preference, I know other people have differing views,” he said. Asked if he Obama had flip-flopped, Romney said only, “you’re a better judge of that than I,” to a reporter. “If that’s the case, you’ll be able to make that determination on your own,” he added. Watch it:

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney took a hard line against same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court legalized it. “On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage,” he declared to the conservative crowd at CPAC this year. He also signed the anti-gay National Organization For Marriage’s (NOM) pledge, in which he promised to fight for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage and defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In 2003 and 2004, Romney touted his opposition to marriage equality to curry favor with the GOP base, and even testified before the Senate Judicial Committee in favor of a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

Now, Romney says that excluding gay people from marrying is merely his “preference”? With this muted response, he’s a bit all over the map.

When Romney was locked in a tough Republican primary against hardcore social conservatives, it suited him to go on the attack on marriage. But now that he’s trying to appeal to independents in the general election and talk exclusively about the economy, he’s just trying to move on as quickly as possible. But the social conservatives who never quite trusted him may not let him.

LGBT

As Marriage Equality Takes The Spotlight, Romney Remains Firmly Opposed

As LGBT issues took national spotlight today, Mitt Romney reaffirmed his opposition to marriage equality and civil unions.

Romney’s stance is not exactly new– he signed a pledge saying he would support a constitutional ammendment to ban marriage equality. But between North Carolina’s vote to ban marriage equality and the firestorm resulting from Vice President Biden’s comments this weekend, Romney is now being asked to revisit the issue.

Romney would not answer the question on the rope line, but according to Twitter accounts of an exchange with a local Colorado reporter, he said he does not support civil unions, which are too close to marriage equality in his opinion:

NEWS FLASH

POLL: 52 Percent Of Likely 2012 Voters Say Will Not Vote For Candidate Opposed To Reducing Money In Politics | A majority (52 percent) of all 2012 likely voters — and 55 percent of independent voters — say they will not vote for any candidate “who will not commit to reducing money in politics,” according to a new poll released today. The survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps and Public Campaign Action Fund shows 73 percent believe we need common-sense limits on the amount of money spent on campaigns, compared to just 21 percent who see such limitations as violations of “free speech.” Even among self-identified Republicans and Tea Party loyalists, about two-thirds back campaign contribution limits.

EXCLUSIVE: Former Sen. Danforth (R) Says GOP Becoming ‘Increasingly Inconsequential,’ ‘Intolerant’

Former Ambassador to the UN and U.S. Sen. John Danforth (R-MO)

In 2010, former Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) told the New York Times that “If Dick Lugar, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.” Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest and President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, served with Lugar in the Senate from 1977 to 1995.

In light of yesterday’s defeat for Lugar, denied the Republican nomination for his Indiana Senate seat by a 60 percent to 40 percent landslide, ThinkProgress contacted to Senator Danforth to ask him his reaction to the news:

THINKPROGRESS: What do you think is happening here?

DANFORTH: An effort by some, and apparently a large number, 60% in Indiana, to purge the Republican Party and to create something that’s ideologically pure and intolerant of anybody who does not agree with them — not just on general principles, but right across the board.

THINKPROGRESS: Do you stand by your view that GOP is beyond hope?

DANFORTH: If this trend succeeds, yeah. What they will be left with, if indeed they want to purge the party of all but people who have a particular ideological slant… it’s not a way to win elections, it’s not political sustainable. It might make them feel good for a time but doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked. It didn’t work in Nevada or in Delaware in last election. They won nominations but couldn’t win elections. I don’t know how you win elections without getting 51% of the vote. I don’t see how you’re gonna get 51% of the vote if you make it clear that people in your own party, who don’t absolutely agree with everything you want to do, aren’t wanted.

Now that the Republican Party that has cast out Lugar, who he noted is not “some kind of liberal” but a “very conservative person,” Danforth warned, “You’re gonna be left with a party that is very pure and increasingly inconsequential. And a political system that is increasingly unable to get off the dime.”

VIDEO: GOP Candidate’s Son Applauds ‘Kill’ Claire McCaskill Line

Sam Steelman

Yesterday, we noted that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is getting beefed up security after a Tea Party activist said “we have to kill the Claire Bear” last week at a Tea Party rally in which Sarah Steelman, McCaskill’s GOP challenger, was present.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the comment was met with “mild applause” from the audience, including, according to a video provided to ThinkProgress by the liberal research group American Bridge, Steelman’s son, Sam. Sam Steelman also serves as his mother’s “deputy [campaign] manager” and acts as a “campaign spokesman.”

In the tracking video, Sam, chatting with his mother, can be clearly seen applauding after activist Scott Boston says, “We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen.” Watch it:

The Missouri Democratic Party hit Steelman for not immediately denouncing Boston’s comments, and the video suggests she heard it. Later, Steelman told the Huffington Post, “I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement, but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views.”

Update

Fellow GOP Senate candidate John Brunner, who will face off against Steelman in the August Republican primary, strongly condemned Boston’s comments: “This type of rhetoric is unconscionable and I reject this kind of politics,” Brunner said in a statement. “Comments like these have no place in this U.S. Senate campaign, or any other campaign in this country, because they don’t represent American values.”

Top 5 Things You Need To Know About Indiana Senate Nominee Richard Mourdock (R)

Last night, Richard Mourdock (R) upset Sen. Dick Lugar (R) in Indiana’s Republican Senate primary. Mourdock, who currently serves as State Treasurer, trounced the 36-year Senate veteran by 22 points, 61-39, due in no small part to his support from Tea Party groups.

Mourdock won by positioning himself well to the right of Lugar. Now, as he enters the limelight as the biggest Tea Party victory of 2012, let’s take a look at the top five things everyone should know about Mourdock.

- (1) Mourdock believes that President Obama deserves the blame for a bad economy, but no credit for its improvement: In an interview with ThinkProgress earlier this year, we asked Mourdock about the economy and who deserves credit in bad times and good. He pinned the blame on President Obama for “killing our economy,” despite the fact that the financial collapse occurred under George W. Bush’s watch. We asked Mourdock whether Obama would deserve credit if the economic recovery continues. “It won’t be because of President Obama when we see recovery,” Mourdock explained. “It will be in spite of President Obama.” [ThinkProgress]

- (2) Mourdock’s take on bipartisanship: it “ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view”: Appearing on MSNBC following his primary victory, Mourdock offered his own unique take on how bipartisanship should work in Washington DC, telling Chuck Todd, “I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.” In other words, the solution for Washington’s ills is not less partisanship and polarization, but more. Dick Lugar had earned a reputation for finding some areas of bipartisan consensus with Democrats, particularly on foreign policy. That is a reputation that Mourdock appears unlikely to uphold. [ThinkProgress]

- (3) His campaign was investigated for accessing voter data: Mourdock’s campaign manager, Jim Holden, “likely violated a user agreement with the state party when he shared a logon to the database with an outside vendor.” In a March 14 email, Holden told staffers that they should “start pillaging email addresses” from the voter database, prompting the state Republican Party to revoke the Mourdock campaign’s access privileges.[AP]

- (4) Mourdock’s model Supreme Court Justice is anti-woman Judge Robert Bork: Asked on MSNBC about how he would approach Supreme Court nomination votes as senator, Mourdock promised to obstruct nominees who didn’t resemble Robert Bork. Bork’s views are so far outside the mainstream they cannot be fully enumerated here, but a few highlights include his description of a federal ban on employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters as “unsurpassed ugliness,” his belief that it is “silly” to think that women are discriminated against, and that it’s “utterly specious” to suggest that women have a constitutional right to use contraception. [ThinkProgress]

- (5) His candidacy is fueled by dirty energy money and outside spending groups: It is unlikely Mourdock would have won the primary without an infusion of $1.6 million in spending from the pro-Wall Street Club for Growth, as well as over half a million from FreedomWorks, an astroturf Tea Party group. In addition, Mourdock enjoyed a maxed out contribution from Murray Energy’s PAC, which represents the nation’s largest privately-owned coal company. Mourdock, a former coal company executive, received an additional $18,000 in contributions elsewhere from the coal, oil, and gas industries. [ThinkProgress]

Richard Mourdock: ‘Bipartisanship Ought To Consist Of Democrats Coming To The Republican Point Of View’

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) crushed Sen. Dick Lugar (R) in yesterday’s GOP Senate primary in Indiana, ending the 36-year career of one of the few Republican senators left in Washington who was interested in working with Democrats to get things done.

Tea Party-backed Mourdock is not just ideological, he is adamantly opposed to bipartisanship. In fact, he’s called for more partisanship in Washington, saying he’s more interested in destroying Democrats than solving the nation’s problems by working with them.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning with host Chuck Todd, Mourdock offered his own definition of bipartisanship:

MOURDOCK: I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. … If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.

Watch it:

As TP Justice Editor Ian Millhiser notes, Mourdock’s win means Democrats have no choice but to reform the filibuster: “The parties are too far apart. The Republicans are too eager to obstruct, and the handful of GOPers with a history of bipartisanship [like Lugar] will be too spooked to reach across the aisle. America could go years with one or more Supreme Court seats vacant.”

A couple of years ago when conservative activists were making noise about primarying Lugar, former Republican senator and UN ambassador John Danforth told the New York Times, “If Dick Lugar, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Apparently, that time has come.

Justice

Richard Mourdock Wins, Or Why Senate Democrats No Longer Have A Choice On Filibuster Reform

In 2009, when President Obama was close to the height of his popularity and political capital, only nine Republican senators voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor: Lamar Alexander, Kit Bond, Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham, Judd Gregg, Dick Lugar, Mel Martinez, Olympia Snowe, and George Voinovich. Of these four (Bond, Gregg, Martinez and Voinovich) are now retired. One (Snowe) recently announced her voluntary retirement. And one, Dick Lugar of Indiana, was just involuntarily retired by Tea Party challenger Richard Mourdock.

Lugar is an Indiana institution. He ran virtually unopposed during his last reelection race, and won by more than 30 points the last time a major party candidate tried to challenge him. Had he won yesterday’s primary, he would have been the prohibitive favorite in November (Mourdock, by contrast, could lose in November as easily as he could win). Nor was Lugar particularly moderate. Among other things, Lugar voted for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) infamous plan to phase out Medicare.

In the age of the Tea Party, however, even the most occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy are enough for the GOP electorate to declare a public official an apostate. Mourdock made Lugar’s votes for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, in addition to a handful of other breaks with America’s far right, the focus of his campaign — and that was enough to defeat a 36 year Senate veteran. In light of this incident, it is unlikely that any of the few remaining Republicans who backed an Obama Supreme Court appointee will be willing to risk their careers by doing the same again.

Lest there be any doubt, there is probably no one President Obama could nominate for the high Court who would satisfy the newly radicalized Republican Party. Mourdock, for his part, recently promised to oppose any nominee who did not fit his personal constitutional philosophy — and he twice cited failed Supreme Court nominee and Romney legal advisor Robert Bork as his model nominee. As recently as last October, Bork mocked the very idea that women sometimes face discrimination as “silly,” and he infamously described the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters as “unsurpassed ugliness” early in his career. Obama would never, ever nominate such a man to the Supreme Court.

In other words, if President Obama has the opportunity to nominate a new justice during a second presidential term, it is tough to imagine any set of circumstances that allows that nominee to receive the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster. The parties are too far apart. The Republicans are too eager to obstruct, and the handful of GOPers with a history of bipartisanship will be too spooked to reach across the aisle. America could go years with one or more Supreme Court seats vacant.

There could be, however, a way out of this trap. In his most recent State of the Union Address, President Obama called on the Senate to “pass a simple rule that all judicial and public servant nominations receive an up or down vote within 90 days” — effectively eliminating the filibuster for Senate-confirmed jobs. Moreover, when the newly-elected Senate reconvenes next January, it opens a very brief window where Obama’s proposed rule could be implemented with just 51 votes.

Should the Democrats manage to hold the Senate next year, an outcome that is much more likely than appeared possible just one year ago, they no longer have the option to maintain the status quo. Keeping the current rules means stripping Obama of his power to nominate Supreme Court justices, and potentially turning the Court over to Mourdock’s fellow ideologues for years to come.

Update

Jonathan Chait expresses similar concerns here.

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

Sign Up