ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Election 2012

Economy

Rick Santorum Ignores Jobs During Arizona GOP Debate

As Rick Santorum has risen in the polls in the GOP presidential race, his campaign has been unsuccessful in its attempt to “turn the political conversation away from the social and cultural issues that have dominated his quest for the Republican presidential nomination so far and focus instead on the economy.” The former Pennsylvania senator continues to bring religion into the campaign, saying that President Obama’s theology is not “based on the Bible” and voicing his opposition to prenatal testing.

Last week, Santorum said to voters in Idaho, “Are economics important? You bet? Are jobs important? You bet.” In last night’s GOP presidential debate, Santorum had a chance to show voters that he really did care about the economy. Instead, he failed to even say the word jobs once:

In total, the four GOP contenders mentioned the word “jobs” only 10 times over the span of two hours — and former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) uttered the word a grand total of zero times. [...] Santorum had entered Wednesday night’s debate riding on a wave of support in the polls and among conservative voters in key primary states. His debate performance — during which he struggled to answer questions about his record in Congress — could serve to blunt that momentum heading into next week’s contests in Michigan and Arizona.

Santorum also never mentioned the unemployed, though he did repeat “spending” and “conservative” over and over. According to Gallup, 31 percent of Americans say the economy is the biggest issue facing the U.S. Thirty-one percent say it’s unemployment and jobs.

Economy

Romney Flips On His Own Tax Plan, Admits He’d Give Huge Tax Break To Top 1 Percent

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released his latest tax reform plan today in Arizona and highlighted specifically the fact that it provided a 20-percent across-the-board cut in marginal tax rates for all Americans.

Upon unveiling the plan, Romney claimed that it would actually force the richest Americans to pay their fair share. Speaking of tax exemptions and deductions, Romney said, “For the high-income folks, we’re going to cut back on that, so that we make sure that the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”

But when former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) attacked Romney at the GOP debate tonight, Romney admitted that his tax plan contained a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans:

SANTORUM: Governor Romney even today suggested today raising taxes on the top 1 percent, adopting the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric. I’m not going to adopt that rhetoric. I’m going to represent 100 percent of Americans. We’re not raising taxes on anyone.

ROMNEY: Number one, I said that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent. So that’s number one.

Watch it:

According to analysis by Center for American Progress Tax and Budget Policy Director Michael Linden, Romney’s claims that his plan would raise taxes on the rich was false. His later claims, that it would provide a tax break to the rich, are indeed true.

Romney’s plan to give a 20-percent tax cut, lowering rates for the wealthiest Americans from 35 percent to 28 percent, and repeal the alternative minimum tax would, as Romney admitted tonight, provide a huge tax break to the richest Americans, at a cost four times higher than the Bush tax cuts. “The enormity of these tax cuts is mind-boggling,” Linden said. “Even more unbelievable is how skewed they are to those the very top of the income ladder.”

Politics

CHART: The 19 Super PAC Donors Who Have Poured $47 Million Into The GOP Race

Sheldon Adelson

Sheldon Adelson

Once again this week, independent-expenditure-only “Super PACs” disclosed their donors for the month of January 2012. A ThinkProgress analysis of these new filings and previously available data reveals that 19 wealthy donors have already given a million dollars or more each, combining to funnel $46.75 million to Republican-allied Super PACs so far this cycle.

It comes as little surprise that this list is dominated by financial sector investors (8), energy and chemical producers (4), and real estate developers (3). All are white. Only one, the wife of casino tycoon Sheldon Edelson, is female. The Obama administration has backed financial sector consumer protections and environmental regulations unpopular with big Wall Street and big energy.

The 19 donors’ contributions accounted for about 53 percent of the $88.2 million combined receipts for those committees. Here are the 19:

Donor Donations Sector
Harold Simmons/Contran Corp. $14.1M Chemicals
Sheldon Adelson $5M Casinos and hotels
Miriam Adelson $5M Casinos and hotels
Bob Perry $3.5M Real Estate/Construction
Peter Thiel $2.6M Finance/Investment
Jon Huntsman Sr. $2.2M Chemicals
Jerry Perenchio Living Trust $2M Media
Julian Robertson $1.25M Finance/Investment
Robert B. Rowling $1.1M Energy
Edward Conard $1M Finance/Investment
Robert Mercer $1M Finance/Investment
John Paulson $1M Finance/Investment
Paul Singer $1M Finance/Investment
Foster Friess $1M Finance/Investment
Rooney Holdings Inc. $1M Real Estate/Construction
William Dore $1M Energy
Whiteco Industries $1M Real Estate/Construction
F8 LLC (Jeremy Blickenstaff) $1M Finance/Investment
Eli Publishing (Steve Lund) $1M Cosmetics

These donations went to Super PACs backing GOP hopefuls Newt Gingrich (Winning Our Future), Ron Paul (Endorse Liberty), Mitt Romney (Restore Our Future), Rick Santorum (Red, White & Blue), backing former candidates Jon Huntsman Jr. (Our Destiny), Rick Perry (Make Us Great Again), and Republican candidates in general (American Crossroads).

To equal just their Super PAC contributions, political campaigns would need to collect more than 18,000 checks for $5,000 — the individual limit. Republican strategist Christopher LaCivita told the New York Times that these super donors are “serious business tycoons.” And these serious business tycoons are seriously overwhelming the political system with their contributions.

Politics

Republican Congressional Candidate Says Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s ‘Allegiance Is Not To America’

AZ-3 GOP candidate Gabriela Mercer

TUCSON, Arizona – A Republican congressional candidate in southern Arizona declared this morning that her Democratic Latino opponent’s “allegiance is not to America.”

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, the favorite to win the Republican nomination in Arizona’s new 3rd congressional district, made the charge against Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) while speaking at a Tucson Tea Party rally. Grijalva, who was born in Arizona, has served his state and country for decades.

After dismissing Grijalva, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as a “communist” — “what is progressive about communism?” Mercer asked — she told the crowd that the congressman is “anti-America.” “His allegiance is not to America,” Mercer declared. “Grijalva was born here, but he hates the American way”:

MERCER: I don’t understand what is wrong with this guy. Excuse me, Representative Grijalva. He’s not only anti-business, he’s anti-America. Wait a minute Gabby, why did you say that? Grijalva voted against the protection of the Pledge of Allegiance, because his allegiance is not to America. Grijalva was born here, but he hates the American way.

Watch it:

Calling a prominent sitting congressman a traitor to his country is about as serious a charge as one can make. In 2008, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called for an investigation into “anti-American members of Congress,” sparking a firestorm of backlash that almost cost her re-election in a comfortably Republican district.

Last January, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head less than 10 miles from where Mercer made her comments, leading the nation to question whether the level of animosity in our political rhetoric had gotten out of hand. Politics is unquestionably a realm not for the faint-hearted, but questioning opponents’ patriotism, much less calling them out-and-out traitors, has no place in American elections.

Alyssa

My Favorite David Foster Wallace Piece

Today would have been David Foster Wallace’s 50th birthday, had he not committed suicide in 2008 after years of struggling with severe depression. I will admit to sometimes finding his writing off-putting: he could be anthropological about his subjects, particularly in his non-fiction, where on occasion, that distance shaded over into contempt. But sometimes, he applied that approach to a subject that truly merited it, and that was the case in “The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys And The Shrub,” his report for Rolling Stone about John McCain’s struggle against George W. Bush in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000 (the essay was later republished in one of his collections, and then an expanded version as a stand-alone book).

While of course there’s expertise that comes with covering the campaign trail, and the jobs of embeds are really hard, it’s also a setting that benefits from someone parachuting in occasionally and pointing out that hey, all of this is utterly ridiculous, and exhausting, and a spectacle. Wallace writes:

If this all seems really static and dull, by the way, then understand that you’re getting a bona fide look at the reality of media life on the Trail, much of which consists of wandering around killing time on Bullshit 1 while you wait for the slight meaningful look from Travis that means he’s gotten the word from his immediate superior, Todd (28 and so obviously a Harvard alum it wasn’t ever worth asking), that after the next stop you’re getting rotated up into the big leagues on the Express to sit squished and paralyzed on the crammed red press-couch in back and listen to John S. McCain and Mike Murphy answer the Twelve Monkeys’ questions, and to look up-close and personal at McCain and the way he puts his legs way out on the salon’s floor and crosses them at the ankle and sucks absently at his right bicuspid and swirls the coffee in his McCain2000.com mug, and to try to penetrate the innermost box of this man’s thoughts on the enormous hope and enthusiasm he’s generating in press and voters alike … which you should be told up front does not and cannot happen.

In any case, you’ll get told to read a lot of things by David Foster Wallace today. But this would be my vote for which one you should pick. It’s a fantastic piece. But it’s also a terrific reminder of how marvelous it would be to have him around for a presidential election that’s many magnitudes weirder than South Carolina in 2000. What a loss.

Green

Mitt’s Canadian Tar Sands Lobbyist Guarantees Keystone XL Construction If Romney Elected

David Wilkins, a lobbyist for Canadian oil interests and a prominent supporter of the Romney presidential campaign, has guaranteed approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline if President Obama is defeated. In an interview with the Financial Post, the former ambassador to Canada during the George W. Bush administration said that the risky tar sand project would “absolutely be approved if a Republican gets elected president”:

Q: What will be the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline, in your opinion?

WILKINS: It will absolutely be approved if a Republican gets elected president. I am hopeful it will be approved [under Obama]. There are two schools of thought on this: If Mr. Obama gets re-elected, he will listen to his base and never approve it. The other school of thought believes Mr. Obama will approve it as he no longer has to rely on his environment base – I don’t know which one it is.

A long-time South Carolina legislator, Wilkins chaired the 2004 Bush re-election efforts in that state before being picked as ambassador to Canada. He then joined the Nelson Mullins lobbying firm, where he advocates for Alberta, Canada oil and timber interests. Wilkins is a registered lobbyist for the province of Alberta, the tar sands company Nexen Inc., Alberta Energy, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Wilkins supported the candidacy of Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) before joining the Romney campaign in January. Announcing his endorsement of Romney, Wilkins cited the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Economy

Romney Endorser Corrects Mitt On Auto Rescue: ‘No One Could Have’ Saved The Industry Except The Government

Mitt Romney’s renewed opposition to the rescue that saved the American auto industry, which came in the form of yet another editorial announcing his desire to “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” was immediately slammed by auto industry insiders, reporters who covered the rescue, and even publications that had once taken his same position.

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton (R), who endorsed Romney, has now joined that chorus, telling Western Michigan University’s WMUK radio that turning to the private sector to rescue Detroit as Romney advocated was never an option:

HOST: He wrote an op-ed for the Detroit News in which he said it is good news that U.S. auto companies are back but he questioned the manner in which it was done, the so-called auto bailout. This was a fight that you were knee deep in at the time it was happening. Do you agree with his characterization?

UPTON: I did not see the article that he wrote. I do know that all of the Michigan delegation worked very hard as related to the revival of the auto industry. There was really a choice between bankruptcy and liquidation. 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. There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.

Later in the interview, Upton disputed Romney’s assertion that the rescue was a President Obama-led bailout of unions, noting that President George W. Bush began the program and that it was “bipartisan from the get-go.” Upton then noted that without the rescue, Michigan “would have hit 40 percent unemployment rates.”

Upton isn’t the only Michigan politician to criticize Romney’s position. Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who also endorsed Romney, told the New York Times last November that the GOP should stop criticizing the auto rescue, saying he wouldn’t “second-guess” it because “the auto industry is doing very well today.” Oddly, both Upton and Snyder have chosen to tout Romney’s economic credentials to Michigan voters while ignoring his factually-challenged opposition to a rescue that saved the state’s largest industry.

Green

Santorum: Climate Science Is Obama’s ‘Phony Theology’

This Sunday, Republican presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Rick Santorum argued that climate science is President Barack Obama’s “phony theology.” On CBS’s Face The Nation, Santorum was asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” Santorum replied that he was describing the Obama administration’s actions based on the science behind man-made global warming. Obama’s acceptance of science, Santorum said, is a “worldview that elevates the Earth above man“:

When you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this is all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government.

Watch it:

On Monday, Santorum expanded on his conspiracy theories, saying that global warming is “political science,” not “climate science.”

Justice

Sheldon Adelson Considers $100M Donation To Gingrich, But Says He’s ‘Against Very Wealthy People… Influencing Elections’

Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has already given the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future $21 million this year. Now, as his preferred candidate flounders in the polls, Adelson is floating the possibility of donating an additional $100 million.

A political contribution of that magnitude from a single source would be absolutely unprecedented. The next largest single contribution — a mere $5 million that “singlehandedly revived Gingrich’s campaign” last month — came from Adelson as well. All super PACs combined have raised $98.5 million this cycle, less than the possible $100 million Adelson check.

With net worth estimated at approximately $25 billion, Adelson is the eighth richest person in the United States. When asked if uber-wealthy plutocrats making political purchases of this magnitude was fair, he offered this response:

“I’m against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections,” he shrugs. “But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it.”

Setting aside Adelson’s Orwellian hypocrisy, progressives could not have said it better themselves. They are not only opposed to rich people buying elections, but also against it being perfectly legal to do so.

Indeed, one need look no further than Gingrich’s rhetoric and policy proposals in the Middle East to see where Adelson is receiving a return on his investment. For nearly two decades, Adelson has lobbied for an extremely controversial proposal to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now, Gingrich has said he will do so on his very first day as president. Adelson has also lauded Gingrich’s characterization of Palestinians as “an invented people.”

Individuals should not be permitted to buy public policy in this country, yet our campaign system post-Citizens United and the rise of super PACs permits them such undue influence. As long as unlimited political contributions remain legal, billionaires like Adelson will continue to take advantage of the system.

Alyssa

How to DJ a Political Campaign

I really love this New York Times Magazine infographic on how to accomplish the rather difficult task of DJing a political campaign event without offending the candidate, the audience, or running afoul of cranky artists. Attention to lyrics are at the top of the list:

There are obvious songs to stay away from — Creedence Clearwater Revival’s ‘‘Fortunate Son’’ for Romney, Public Enemy’s ‘‘Fear of a Black Planet’’ for Obama, Tom Jones’s ‘‘Sex Bomb’’ for Gingrich — but seemingly innocuous tracks also have to be vetted for double meaning. (Campaigns sometimes give D.J.’s specific playlists to avoid trouble.) ‘‘For Herman Cain, especially, I didn’t use anything with sexual overtones,’’ says John Donahue, who has also spun for Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman. ‘‘A couple of songs on my list at his last rally were great, like this one upbeat Christina Aguilera song with the chorus ‘Ain’t no other man can stand up next to you.’ But the lyrics talk about calling your lover, so I didn’t play it.’’

I also think it’s telling what the Donahue suggest if the factors are just too complicated to get creative: ‘‘Play upbeat country. It’s usually got patriotic overtones. If ‘America’ is in the title, even better.’’ I saw a lot of complaints during the Grammys about how much country music was included in the ceremony given that it’s a genre with its own powerful infrastructure and awards shows. But increasingly, I think hip-hop and country are more the dominant consensus genres in this country, given both their free-standing success and their infiltration of pop and rock. I’m curious if Donahue, who DJs for conservative candidates, would give the same advice for Democratic rallies, or if he thinks country is solidly red and other genres are solidly blue.

Older

Switch to Mobile