Gov. Rick Perry supports the decriminalization of marijuana

Jessica Hill/AP

Gov. Rick Perry signaled Thursday that he's for the decriminalization of marijuana use — not legalization, but the softening of punishment for pot users in the border state.

“As governor, I have begun to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization” by introducing alternative “drug courts” that provide treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses, Perry said during an international panel on drug legalization at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

It's the first time the governor, who's voiced support for drug courts in the past, took a position on decriminalization in Texas.

His spokeswoman confirmed that Perry is staunchly opposed to legalization of marijuana because of the dangers that have been associated with the drug but is committed to policies that would lower the punishment for its use to keep smokers out of jail.

“Legalization is no penalty at all, whereas decriminalization doesn't necessarily mean jail time (for minor possession offenses). It means more of a fine or counseling or some sort of program where you don't end up in jail but in a rehabilitative program,” said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry.

“The goal is to keep people out of jails and reduce recidivism, that kind of thing,” she said, adding that decriminalization would exclude violent offenders and dealers.

In Texas, an offender with less than 2 ounces of marijuana can be sentenced to up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. An offender with more than 5 pounds faces up to two years in jail.

Drug courts, which provide supervision and intense rehabilitation for some convicted drug users in lieu of jail time, were passed in Texas in 2001 by a group of Democrat lawmakers.

Bills have been introduced in the state Legislature to reduce penalties and allow the sale of medicinal marijuana over the past six years but have not made it out of committee.

In the past, Perry has discussed his opposition to legalization of marijuana but voiced his support for the 10th amendment and state's rights to legalize the drug, which he highlighted at the forum Thursday.

Perry did not address medicinal use of marijuana during the event.

Nashed said Perry has discussed support of drug courts in the past; however, the governor specifically has not gone as far as supporting decriminalization in public comments.

“I am shocked,” said Ana Yañez-Correa, executive director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, adding that Perry killed a drug treatment bill the organization supported in 2007. “I am very happy to hear the governor supports a more rehabilitative approach.”

More than 15,000 people are imprisoned in Texas correctional facilities for possession of drugs, Yañez-Correa said.

Perry, who sought the Republican nomination to the office in 2012, announced in 2013 that he would not seek re-election to his office. He has not confirmed whether he will run for president again.

When asked whether Perry thinks it's a good idea to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana in Texas, Nashed said, “He has long supported diversionary programs like drug courts in Texas that have had remarkable results.”

Perry made the comments on a panel that included former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Colombian President Juan Manuel.

Source

GOP chair resigns after making racist comment on The Daily Show

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

GOP/Tea Party unfavorability at an all-time high

Unfavorable ratings for both the Republican Party and the tea party have ticked up to record highs, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday evening.

Sixty-four percent of Americans view the Republican Party unfavorably, and 56 percent view the tea party unfavorably. Both are all-time highs in CNN's polling, although in each case, it's only a 2-point increase from a survey taken Sept. 27 through 29.

Prominent Republicans have also taken a hit.

House Speaker John Boehner's (Ohio) unfavorable rating is at 55 percent, up from 48 percent just before the shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (Ky.) unfavorables rose to 42 percent from 39 percent before the shutdown. Members of their own party are also increasingly rating them negatively, according to polling. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of the most vocal supporters of the shutdown, saw his unfavorable rating climb 6 points to 42 percent.

While top Democrats are still viewed more negatively than positively, they've seen their numbers improve, according to the poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) unfavorable rating is at 40 percent, down from 45 percent at the end of September, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) unfavorable rating is at 47 percent, down from 51 percent. The Democratic Party's unfavorable rating remains effectively unchanged at 51 percent, a point below where it stood in September.

Previously released results from the same poll found that a majority of Americans now consider GOP control of the House a bad thing, and want Boehner to be replaced. Other post-shutdown polls have also found Republicans suffering from the political aftereffects.

The CNN poll surveyed 841 Americans between Oct. 18 and Oct. 20, using live phone interviews.

Source

Shutdown may be over but politicians are not celebrating

Following the anti-climactic conclusion to the 16-day saga that left tens of thousands of government employees out of work, at least one United States senator isn't breaking out the party hats just yet.

After Congress passed a bill late Wednesday to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., sent an email to supporters saying that although she was pleased that the bill addressing two disasters had passed, she feels the damage to the economy has already been done.

"According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt," Warren wrote in the email. "$24 billion dollars. How many children could have been back in Head Start classes? How many seniors could have had a hot lunch through Meals on Wheels? How many scientists could have gotten their research funded? How many bridges could have been repaired and trains upgraded?"

Warren, along with Democrats in the Senate, have continually blamed the shutdown on House Republicans who put forth legislation to continue funding the government only if implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as its become known, was delayed for a year. When that condition became the crux of all spending proposals to clear the GOP-led House, the Democrat-led Senate refused to consider such actions, shutting down non-essential facets of the federal government on Oct. 1, causing thousands of employees to be furloughed across the country.

At the same time, many Republicans have blamed the shutdown on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats for being unwilling to consider negotiating on the health care overhaul. But in the end, Republicans conceded defeat as the bipartisan legislation stopping the shutdown and raising the nation's debt limit passed without any stipulation addressing the Affordable Care Act, which was passed in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court last year.

“The House has fought with everything it has to convince President Barack Obama to engage in bipartisan negotiations aimed at addressing our country's debt and providing fairness for the American people under ObamaCare. That fight will continue," said Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement. "Our drive to stop the train wreck that is the president's health care law will continue. We will rely on aggressive oversight that highlights the law's massive flaws and smart, targeted strikes that split the legislative coalition the president has relied upon to force his health care law on the American people."

In her dispatch, Warren reiterated her disdain for the so-called sequester, which took effect mandating layoffs and furloughs when Congress failed to pass a budget in December. As she has said since being elected in November, Warren places the blame for a failure to compromise in that regard squarely on the GOP.

"The Republicans keep saying, 'Leave the sequester in place and cut all those budgets.' They keep trying to cut funding for the things that would help us build a future. But they are ready to flush away $24 billion on a political stunt," Warren wrote. "So I'm relieved, but I'm also pretty angry. We have serious problems that need to be fixed, and we have hard choices to make about taxes and spending. I hope we never see our country flush money away like this again. Not ever."


The junior senator from Massachusetts, Democrat Ed Markey, also released a statement taking aim at the Republicans; specifically the Tea Party caucus, for making the already-settled health care overhaul a part of their bargaining posture.

“The inflexible, ideology-driven extreme Tea Party faction of the Republican Party shut down most of the federal government and held the entire U.S. economy hostage, and for what? To take away health insurance benefits from millions of Americans. It is time for the Republican Party to reject the obstructionism of its Tea Party faction," Markey said in the statement. "It is time to accept the fact that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land."

Congressman Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass., took a less partisan tone than the commonwealth's two senators following the compromise bill. In a statement, Kennedy instead focused on the fact that the legislation was approved by the Senate, 81-18, and in the House, 285-144, to make its way to Obama, who had previously pledged to sign it.

"The legislation passed this evening reopens our government and avoids a disastrous financial default. Congress now has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to move beyond this manufactured crisis and return to serving the American people," said Kennedy, who is serving his first term in Congress. "Although I am grateful that we have reached this agreement, I am troubled by the path we took to get there. We cannot repeat this debacle in three months as we approach a new round of fiscal deadlines. I hope that we can build on the momentum of this evening to reach a long term bipartisan agreement that will allow for the economic recovery of our country to continue."

Source

Three reasons why Virginia women need to question voting for Ken Cuccinelli

Do you live in Virginia? Then you need to read this story. Do you not live in Virginia? You still need to read this story so you can tell your friends who live in Virginia to read this story. It’s a big election year for many states, where the governor’s office is up for grabs. In Virginia, the race is between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli. If you’re a woman in Virginia, it’s especially important to pay attention to this race, and cast your vote carefully because so many things Ken Cuccinelli stands for could affect your access to health care and your right to privacy. Here are three things you should be aware of before you go to the polls in November. (Be sure you’re registered to vote; if you’re not, the deadline is October 15 and you can register here.)

1. Cuccinelli tried to have Planned Parenthood defunded in Virginia because the organization offers “abortion on demand to our children.” While PP does provide abortion services and it’s unfortunately what they’ve become known for, that’s only one small part of the vast health services they provide — including medical checkups for people who really need them. The people who use Planned Parenthood aren’t just wayward teens who got knocked up. They’re women (and men!) — most of whom are lower-income. That includes college students or young women just starting out on their own (which might describe many of you reading this), whose entry-level salaries don’t leave much to pay for anything in the way of doctor visits after you factor in the rent check, gas money, and one trip to the grocery store. Planned Parenthood provides an opportunity for lower-income young women to take proper care of their health, so anyone who wants to cut that off should give you pause.

2. Cuccinelli is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Now, even if you’re pro-life, can you imagine being raped? Or even worse, by a family member — and then being forced by law to have the baby? If Cuccinelli is made governor, women in these situations would be forced to go through with these pregnancies. Then, to add insult to injury, since there would be no Planned Parenthood, they wouldn’t have access to affordable prenatal care to help them have healthy babies. So on the surface, Cuccinelli may seem simply pro-life, but if you look deeper into his platform, you start to realize that he doesn’t have any plans to provide support to women and their babies even though he wants us to have them under any circumstances.

3. He’s also on a strange kick to reinstate the “Crimes Against Nature” law, (one that was found unconstitutional a whole decade ago), which essentially makes it a felony to give a blowjob. if this happened to pass and were actually enforced, can you say “overcrowded jails”? And does that make Cosmo an accomplice to the crimes, considering this publication gives sex tip of all kinds to help women feel empowered in bed? I loveOrange Is the New Black but prefer to look at life in jail through Netflix as opposed to experiencing it firsthand.

Bottom line? Cuccinelli has strong religious views, and he’s entitled to them — as Americans, we all are. But it’s important for our officials in government to not allow their religion to infiltrate the laws that affect the population of an entire state of people who do not all hold those same views. Maybe Cuccinelli is a good family man but when you’re governor of a state, your role isn’t to be patriarch, it’s to be a leader to all constituents — even those who don’t agree with your personal beliefs.

Source

Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Michele Bachmann's comment about DOMA decision

It took Nancy Pelosi just two words on Wednesday to take Michele Bachmann down a notch.

The House minority leader was asked during a press conference what she thought of Bachmann's intense denunciation earlier in the day of the Supreme Court's historic rulings in favor of gay marriage. She replied with a shrug:

"Who cares?"

Bachmann, whose staunch opposition to gay marriage is long and storied, had insisted in a written statement Wednesday morning that, "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted." She would resume that line of attack later during a press conference, calling the Court's decisions an affront to the Constitution, and to "the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage."

Pelosi's economical dismissal was received with laughs from her Democratic colleagues. It doubtless was not received so well by Bachmann, whose star has dimmed considerably of late: two summers ago, the Minnesota congresswoman was in the thick of the Republican Party's presidential primary, but now she finds herself serving out the remainder of her final term in Congress.

Source

Where has Mitt Romney gone?

Ten days after at least some Republicans were surprised to see Mitt Romney lose the presidency, the candidate is gone without a trace.

There appears to be no Romney Republicanism to propagate. No Romney strategy to emulate. No Romney technology to ape. No generation shaped by his failed effort. And no Romney infrastructure to inherit, though he may still be asked to write and bundle quite a few checks. Romney's bewildering post-election explanations of his defeat — Obama, he said, had bought off Americans — drew almost universal condemnation from leaders of his party, but the comments were more excuse than cause; party figures from Ari Fleischer to Bobby Jindal appeared to be waiting to kick Romney to the side of the road. The candidate did them a favor when he complained that Democrats had simply bought off young people and minority voters, a churlish line that erased any lingering Republican affinity for him as, when all else failed, a good-hearted guy.

Romney is being erased with record speed from his party's books for three reasons. First, many Republicans backed him because they thought he had a good chance of winning; that appeal, obviously, is gone. Second, Romney had shallow roots, and few friends, in the national Republican Party. And those shallow roots have allowed Republicans to give him a new role: As a sort of bad partisan bank, freighted with all the generational positions and postures that they are looking to dump.

"Romney is now a toxic asset to unload," the historian Jack Bohrer remarked Saturday. "The only interesting thing left to his story is how they dispose of him."

The simplest reason for Romney's quick fadeout is that his central promise was that he could win. He delivered immense fundraising prowess and ideological flexibility. He was never going to win partisan hearts like the two iconic, beloved losers of his father's generation, Barry Goldwater and George McGovern.

"This is ever the sad fate of the 'electability' candidate who fails to get elected,"tweeted Red State editor Dan McLaughlin.

But other electability candidates have not been subject to the sort of forced amnesia already washing over Romney. John Kerry and John McCain both faced, perhaps, even more bitter recriminations on questions of tactics and strategy from inside their parties —but they returned to important Senate roles, positions of respect in Washington and in their parties, and Kerry may join the next Cabinet.

Other losers can draw, similarly, on deep wells of loyalty at high levels of the party structure. Bob Dole and Walter Mondale got crushed by the last two-term incumbents to serve two terms. They faded fast from the American public imagination, too. But they also retook their seats on the party dais. Mondale, a former Vice President with deep ties to a key constituency, organized labor, became his party's Senate nominee after Paul Wellstone died in 2002. Dole, a beloved war hero and longtime party soldier, received the Medal of Freedom from Bill Clinton in 1997, and was appointed by George W. Bush to chair a commission a decade later.

Romney was a party outsider who bought his way in. The campaigns he came up working for — his father's — operated in the essentially defunct moderate Republican tradition he abandoned, though a few of its stragglers staffed his headquarters in ... Boston. Much of his inner circle consisted of people whose loyalty was to Romney, not to his party or even his platform; that was also true of his most enthusiastic volunteers.

Now Republicans don't even seem to want to pile on Romney. Karl Rove and the SuperPAC infrastructure have absorbed as much disgust from donors and activists as Romney's campaign, which found a message in the fall after a dismal summer. Recriminations, such as they are, have focused on the collapse of a glorified digital list called Orca. Republicans just want to forget Romney.

That's because many of the Republican Party's leaders are, in fact, eager to change. Parties and politicians pivot faster than their friends or enemies ever imagine, and the Republican Party of Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio is pivoting very fast. And for all the reasons that Romney is easy for Republicans to forget, he offers them thy ideal sacrifice. Conservatives were always too fond of Barry Goldwater to write him off as the "extremist" Democrats successfully cast him as; they never liked Mitt Romney anyway, and will gladly remember him for his most odious comments.

There is an irony that Romney, the moderate, will be forced to carry off Todd Akin's baggage on reproductive rights; Joe Arpaio's on immigration; and James Dobson on gay rights. But when he cast popular policies as "gifts" to Obama voters (ignoring both his and Obama's expensive promises to older voters), his decision to, as Bobby Jindal put it, "insult" the demographic groups who are a larger part of each successive electorate offered the Republicans the pivot they had been looking for toward presenting a younger, more diverse, and more inclusive party.

Now Romney's own party will gladly let him, and his reputation, carry off the values for which he is only now, for the first time, really the spokesman.

Source

The good, the bad, and the ugly of the 2012 election campaign

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gov. Christie praises Obama's hurricane response

The presidential candidates have canceled all campaign events on Tuesday, but Republican New Jersey Chris Christie seemed to be stumping for President Barack Obama by appearing on several networks to praise the federal response to Hurricane Sandy.

In an interview on NBC, Christie called Obama “outstanding” for expediting relief efforts. He also told MSNBC that Obama “deserves great credit.”

“He gave me his number at the White House and told me to call him if I needed anything,” Christie said.

The New Jersey governor even took his message to Fox News, saying that Obama had helped “tremendously.”

“I spoke to the president three times yesterday,” he explained. “He called me for the last time at midnight last night asking what he could do. I said, if you can expedite designating New Jersey as a major disaster area that that would help us to get federal money and resources in here as quickly as possible to help clean up the damage here.”

“The president was great last night,” Christie continued. “He said he would get it done. At 2 a.m., I got a call from FEMA to answer a couple of final questions and then he signed the declaration this morning. So I have to give the president great credit. He’s been on the phone with me three times in the last 24 hours. He’s been very attentive, and anything that I’ve asked for, he’s gotten to me. So, I thank the president publicly for that. He’s done — as far as I’m concerned — a great job for New Jersey.”

Fox News co-host Steve Doocy wondered when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was going to get some of the same benefits from the hurricane with a photo op in disaster-stricken New Jersey towns.

“Over the last couple of months, you have appeared throughout the country, Governor, on behalf of Mitt Romney,” Doocy remarked to Christie. “[W]e hear that perhaps Mr. Romney may do some storm-related events. Is there any possibility that Gov. Romney may go to New Jersey to tour some of the damage with you?”

“I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested,” Christie replied, immediately shutting down the idea. “I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could [sic] care less about any of that stuff.”

“I have a job to do,” he added. “I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power, I’ve got devastation on the shore, I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.”

Source

Romney's five-point plan is the same as Bush's and McCain's

Mitt Romney’s 5 point plan to create jobs was John McCain’s 5 point plan in 2008, and George W. Bush’s 2004. In reality, voters are voting for Bush’s economic ideas, not Romney’s.

Here is Romney’s 5 point plan:
1). Achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs – not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices.

2). Trade that works for America.

3). Provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

4). Cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

5). Champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

Here is John McCain’s 5 point plan from his 2008 acceptance speech at the Republican convention:
1). I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them.

2). I will cut government spending. He will increase it.

3). Education — education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained, but what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice.


4). We all know that keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs.

5). We’ll attack — we’ll attack the problem on every front. We’ll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we’ll
drill them now. We’ll drill them now.

George W. Bush’s 5 point plan for the economy from 2004:
1). To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.

2). To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

3). To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe.

4). And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country. Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess…

5). To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for. He’s proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, and that’s a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney’s 5 point plan to jumpstart the economy is actually John McCain’s 2008 5 point plan to get the economy moving, which was George W. Bush’s 2004 five point plan to grow the economy. The plan for the Republicans is always the same, cut taxes, reduce spending, a talking point about school choice, more domestic oil drilling, and free trade.

The last time this plan was tried by a president the economy collapsed. Voters rejected a rehash of the Bush ideas in 2008, and Mitt Romney is back trying to sell the same plan in a different order in 2012. The reality is that Republicans have no idea how to fix or grow the economy, but they do have an ideology that tells them government is bad, and tax cuts for the wealthy are good.

Mitt Romney isn’t some bold visionary who has the secret to unlocking our national economic power. He is just the latest in a long line of Republican salesmen who are peddling an economic plan that didn’t work then, and won’t work now.

If you are early voting now, or will be stepping into the voting booth on Election Day, remember that you aren’t voting for Mitt Romney’s plan. You’ll be voting for George W. Bush’s, and we all remember where that got us the last time we tried it.

Source

Tina Fey bashes GOP rape comments

Tina Fey doesn't need Saturday Night Live to take cracks at politicians.

The longtime "Weekend Update" anchor, who returned to SNL in 2008 to deliver a stinging impersonation of Sarah Palin, was a featured speaker at the Center for Reproductive Rights Inaugural Gala in New York City on Wednesday, and gave an impassioned speech on behalf of endangered feminist ideals.

Bemoaning the fact that she feels as if women's rights was no longer a subject that could be discussed in civil terms, Fey unloaded on political candidates such as Richard Mourdock, the GOP nominee for the open senate seat from Indiana, who on Tuesday night said that pregnancy from rape was "God's will."

"If I have to listen to one more grey-faced man with a $2 haircut explain to me what rape is,” she warned, “I’m going to lose my mind!”

Fey compared the whole political scene to the sexist world of Mad Men -- which is, of course, set in the 1960's.

She specifically had harsh words for Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who has stayed in his race for senate even after receiving harsh condemnation for a gaffe that displayed a loose grip on science.

"Todd Akin claims that women can’t really get pregnant from a legitimate rape because the body secretes hormones -- you know what, I can’t even finish this sentence without getting dumber... Mr. Akin, I think you're confusing the term rape with competitive gymnastics."

Source

Fact-checking the final debate

Fact-checking has become such an integral part of the 2012 presidential race that President Obama, in his final debate against GOP challenger Mitt Romney, actually gave a shout-out to the growing crop of truth-seekers. After Romney trotted out his well-worn line about Obama's 2009 "apology tour," Obama shot back that "every fact-checker and every reporter who's looked at it, governor, has said this is not true." But Obama had his own moments of truth-stretching in the debate. Here's a scorecard of some of the biggest points of contention in the final act of the 2012 debates:

Obama: Romney was "very clear that [he] would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true."
The verdict: Partly trueObama overreached here, say NPR's Mark Memmott, Scott Montgomery, and Mark Stencel. In a famous November 2008 New York Times op-ed, Romney said if the government bailed out GM and Chrysler, "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye," but he did propose a "managed bankruptcy" in which the federal government provides "guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing." The problem is, according to auto executives and outside experts, there would have been no post-bankrupt GM or Chrysler to help, says Jeremy W. Peters at The New York Times. In late 2008, credit markets were frozen and no private firms — not even Romney's own Bain Capital — were "looking to invest to the tune of the $80 billion the car companies needed at the time." That means "the only path through bankruptcy would have been Chapter 7 liquidation, not the more orderly Chapter 11 reorganization that the company ultimately followed" under Obama. "In the tangled debate over whether the auto industry would have survived under Romney's bankruptcy plan, Obama has the edge on the argument," says Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post.

Romney: Upon taking office, Obama "said by now we'd be at 5.4 percent unemployment." The verdict: Mostly false
This claim stems from an economic projection two Obama economists laid out before he took office, to predict the effects of a $775 billion economic stimulus bill. The economists, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, added "numerous caveats and warnings" to their analysis, says Kessler, "because, after all, it was merely a projection," based on an unwritten bill. But yes, a chart on Page 4 of the report did foresee unemployment dropping to 5.4 percent by mid-2012. "The chart is now infamous, but it was never pitched as a promise," says PolitiFact. And the caveats were there for good reason: "The economy was, in fact, much worse than economists knew."

Obama: Romney "said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day."The verdict: Half trueRomney didn't really contest Obama's narrow point, that he thinks we should still have combat troops in Iraq, says Kessler. But ultimately, "Romney has the better part of this argument," because as he points out, Obama tried to keep troops there, too. The Obama administration attempted to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would keep roughly 5,000 troops in Iraq, but the talks fell apart when Iraq declined to put the agreement to a parliamentary vote and the Obama administration decided that would expose U.S. troops to Iraqi prosecution. The upshot is that Obama now "stresses the fact that he has removed all troops from Iraq, while knocking Romney for supporting what he originally had hoped to achieve."

Romney: "Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917.... Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947."
The verdict: Pants on fire
"Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate," saysPolitiFact: In 1916, the Navy had 245 active ships, higher than the numbers before Obama took office but lower than the 285 active ships in 2009 onward; with the Air Force, the total 2009 fleet of 5,988 aircraft is smaller than in any year since 1950. But "this is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim." The ships and aircraft we have now are hugely more powerful, and unlike 50 years ago, U.S. military power is now unequaled. As University of Georgia historianWilliam W. Stueck tells PolitiFact, Romney's comparison "doesn't pass 'the giggle test.'"

Obama: Romney called Russia "the biggest geopolitical threat facing America."The verdict: True
In a March 26 interview on CNN, Romney said that Russia "is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe." In both that interview and a July follow-up on CNN in which he doubled down on Russia being "the No. 1 adversary" in terms of geopolitics — "I'm talking about votes at the United Nations and actions of a geopolitical nature" — Romney added that the biggest national security threat is a nuclear Iran, not Russia.

Romney: Obama began his term with "an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America."
The verdict: Pants on fireIn the debate, Obama called the "apology tour" line "probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign," and the fact-checkers agree. The idea that Obama traveled abroad and apologized for America "is a persistent and false Republican talking point that we have debunked a number of times," says PolitiFact. It stems from a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Karl Rove, says David Sessions at The Daily Beast, and "almost instantly, the right-wing blogosphere began savaging the president's attempt at diplomacy, taking up Rove's 'apology tour' moniker" to try and paint Obama as "weak and confused, reminiscent of Jimmy Carter." That it's patently false should be obvious, but "the president's actual record is what makes the 'apology tour' rhetoric most absurd." You can say a lot about Obama's legally questionable tactics to decimate al Qaeda's leadership ranks, for example, "but you can't say they were the work of an apologizer."

Obama: "Veterans' unemployment is actually now lower than [in the] general population. It was higher when I came into office."
The verdict: Half true
"Whichever measure you use, Obama's formulation was half-right" — and half-wrong, says PolitiFact. If you count all veterans, unemployment was lower (7.4 percent) than the general population (7.8 percent) when Obama took office, and is even lower (6.7 percent) now. If you look just at veterans who served post-9/11, the jobless rate was higher (8.9 percent) when Obama took office and is higher (9.7 percent) still today.

Romney: In terms of balancing budgets, "I went to the Olympics that was out of balance, and we got it on balance."
The verdict: Mostly true
"It's important to understand that there is not one budget for the Olympic Games — there are two," says PolitiFact. In terms of the private organization, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, which ran the games, Romney did turn the finances around, not just balancing the budget but also leaving a $100 million surplus. But there's also the second budget, comprising federal dollars mostly for security and transportation upgrades. Estimates for how much the government chipped in range from $400 million to $1.5 billion, and Romney, by his own account, was aggressive in seeking federal funds for the games. "Romney is right on a technicality that misses the major issue about financing any Olympics," Stanford economist Roger G. Noll tells PolitiFact.

Obama: "With respect to what we've done with China already, U.S. exports have doubled since I came into office."
The verdict: False
According to the U.S. China Business Council, U.S. exports to China hit a record $103.9 billion in 2011, from $69.5 billion in 2009. Ten states have doubled their exports to China in that period, but the U.S. as a whole has not.

Romney: Syria is Iran's "route to the sea."The verdict: False
This one might fit better in the gaffe column, say NPR's Memmott, Montgomery, and Stencel. Iran, "of course, has an extensive coastline along both the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea."

Final score: There was a lot of cherry-picking numbers and stomping on nuance by both candidates, but by choosing to repeat the "pants on fire," "four Pinocchios" claim about Obama's "apology tour," Romney wins the dubious distinction of telling the night's biggest whopper.

Source

Fact-checking last night's debate

Fans of political drama got a real treat in Tuesday night's town-hall rumble between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. The sparks flew as the candidates traded jabs, but the facts and figures did, too. And as in their last face-off, not all those numbers and assertions proved to be true — as the growing chorus of fact-checkers were quick to point out. Here, a survey of some of the biggest disagreements, and which candidate hewed closer to the truth:

Romney: U.S. "oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land"The verdict: Half True
Romney's claim is technically true — in 2011, oil production on federal land was down 13.8 percent — but cherry-picked, says Callum Borchers at The Boston Globe. "Overall, oil production on federal land under Obama is up from 566 million barrels in 2008 to 626 million barrels in 2011, a 10.6 percent increase." And "the big story of the one-year drop-off in public production is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010," says PolitiFact. After the disaster, Obama declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil exploration.

Obama: I immediately labeled the deadly attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi an "act of terror"The verdict: Half True
As debate moderator Candy Crowley noted, Obama did use that phrase in his Rose Garden statement hours after the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. His phrasing was somewhat ambiguous — "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" — but given the context of the remarks, "it seems a fair conclusion that he was including the attack in the 'acts of terror,'" saysPolitiFact. A week after the attack, Obama also said on David Letterman's late-night show that "terrorists and extremists" were responsible for the Libya attack. "But others in his administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam," says the AP's Calvin Woodward. "And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long [to acknowledge that the protests didn't happen] or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration."

Romney: Obama began his presidency "with an apology tour"The verdict: Pants On Fire
Romney has used this line before, but "the notion that President Barack Obama started his presidency with an 'apology tour' is a persistent and false Republican talking point that we have debunked a number of times," saysPolitiFact. Early in his tenure, Obama did go abroad and "criticized past U.S. actions, such as torture practices at Guantanamo, [but] he did not offer one apology." To characterize that as an apology tour is ridiculous.

Obama: Romney's Bain Capital was a "pioneer of outsourcing"The verdict: Half True
Bain, the company Romney founded and led, bought shares in companies that sent back-office, service, and other types of jobs overseas. But "to call these companies pioneers is a stretch," says PolitiFact. That term comes from a Washington Post story from June that said: "During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain... it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components." It is reasonable to call those companies Romney's, but "outsourcing was well established by the time Bain began buying shares in the companies" in question.

Romney: It's "already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons"The verdict: False
The federal ban on manufacturing some semi-automatic assault weapons that President Clinton signed in 1994 expired in 2004, and wasn't renewed. There are other regulations and restrictions still in place — the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment in 1986, says Brian Bennett at the Los Angeles Times. But "fully automatic weapons — guns that fire continuously when the trigger is held down — are legal to possess in the United States."

Obama: Romney called Arizona's immigration law "a model for the nation"The verdict: False
Romney did call Arizona's plan to fight illegal immigration a "model" — as in, "You know, I think you see a model here in Arizona" — in a February GOP primary debate in Phoenix. "But the president took Romney's words out of context," says The Boston Globe's Borchers. Romney "was speaking specifically about the E-Verify employment screening system" in an older state law — not the controversial "show your papers" part of Arizona's 2010 law, as Obama suggested.

Romney: As governor, "I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women"The verdict: False
It's worse than just awkward phrasing — this is "not a true story," says David Bernstein at The Boston Phoenix. In 2002, before Romney was elected, a bipartisan group of women, calling themselves MassGAP, put together a long list of women qualified to fill every cabinet position and lead each state agency, commission, and authority, then presented it to Romney after he was elected. His claim in the debate, "that he asked for such a study, is false."

Obama: As governor, Romney "stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, 'This plant kills'"
The verdict: True
In February 2003, Gov. Romney stood in front of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station and said, "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant — that plant kills people." He was backed up by Harvard public health and environmental researchers who estimated that Salem Harbor, one of the "Filthy Five" plants, was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, and tens of thousands of respiratory problems each year. "Where the president was mistaken," says Caitlin Dickson at The Daily Beast, "was when he said Mitt 'took great pride' in closing the plant, since it's still open."

Romney: My plan will create 12 million jobs in four yearsThe verdict: Four Pinocchios
Romney's repeated claim "that his economic plan would produce 12 million jobs" sure "sounds like a pretty bold statement," since only two presidents — Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan — have accomplished that feat, says The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler. But his plan — mostly just "a collection of policy assertions, such as reducing debt, overhauling the tax code, fostering free trade, and so forth"— is "even less impressive than it sounds" when you realize that Moody's Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisors both estimate that the U.S. economy will create at least 12 million new jobs no matter who is in the White House. In other words, says USA Today, "it is accurate that the U.S. economy is expected to gain 12 million jobs in the first term of the next president, but Romney's job plan is not the reason."

Obama: "What I've also said is, for (those earning) above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president"The verdict: False
Obama's statement is true "only for federal income tax rates," saysFactCheck.org. Obama has proposed raising the income tax ceiling for the wealthiest households to the Clinton-era 39.6 percent, from George W. Bush's 35 percent. But Obama failed to mention that he "already has enacted new taxes that also will fall on those same taxpayers" — a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax surcharge on wages above $250,000 per household and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for the wealthy. "As a result many, if not most, high-income persons will pay more in federal taxes under Obama's proposed rates than they did under Clinton."

Final score: "Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before," says FactCheck.org. (Read the fact-check of the first Obama-Romney debate here for some of them.) So neither can really claim the high road. But Romney seems to have told the more egregious whoppers — and, in the case of his instantly fact-checked overreach on Benghazi, perhaps the only one that will make any difference.

Source

Debate highlights songified

Bad lip reading: Presidential Debate

Mitt Romney Style

CollegeHumor’s Favorite Funny Videos

Romney goes on the offense, pays for it in the first round of fact checks

In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.

Here is a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:

— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.

Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."

Still, as NPR's Julie Rovner has reported, "some of the money does indeed reduce future Medical spending, and the fact is, you can't reduce health care spending and preserve Medicare for 78 million baby boomers without slowing its growth."

— In listing his objections to the Affordable Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."

But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn't make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney's characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney's claim a "mostly false" rating.

Under the law, the board's job would be to keep Medicare spending within a particular target (not a dollar figure, but as a factor of GDP) but the board is prohibited from choosing the benefits to be restricted to achieve savings, so it cannot make treatment decisions.

FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, 'ration' care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."

— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' That's the case. ... Obama said he put forward 'a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.' That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would 'cut our deficits by $4 trillion' Half True.)"

— As for Obama's claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR's John Ydstie says that's true. But it also ignores an inconvenient truth (for the president), that about the same number of jobs were lost during Obama's first year in office.

— And on a lighter note, the debate opened with a tender moment and a fact that soon was disputed on Twitter. In acknowledging his wedding anniversary, Obama said that "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me." An astute tweeter noted that 20 years ago, the first lady's last name was Robinson.

Source

Jon Stewart rips Romney's 47% controversy

On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart took on the current campaign controversy: Mitt Romney‘s hidden video about those “47 percent” of voters. Noting Romney’s damage control, he mocked the GOP presidential hopeful’s brushing off the incident while clearly being rattled by it.

Stewart began by noting that before this whole debacle, the Romney campaign had hit the reset button, which he likened to goading a girl to go on a seventh date…because this time, she’ll like him.

Nonetheless, Stewart moved on to the now-infamous video, in which Romney spoke “in a manner you would imagine cartoon rich people talk about cartoon poor people.” Diving into his narrative, Stewart took a look at who these “47 percenters” who don’t pay income tax really are. Turns out, nearly two-thirds pay payroll tax and the “true freeloaders” are actually comprised of those making less than $20,000 a year — including the elderly (i.e., “Nana”).

Continuing, Stewart played a clip in which Romney’s mother, Lenore Romney spoke about Romney’s father who received welfare assistance. Thus, by Mitt Romney’s logic, Stewart deduced, “Mitt Romney could not win the vote of his dad.”

But the ordeal wasn’t over without some good old damage control. There was the press conference — wherein Romney explained that he didn’t make his point in the most elegant or effective way. Here, Stewart noticed a dichotomy between what he was saying with his words and what he was saying visually. Donning a prop to make his point, Stewart remarked that it’s rather like a captain announcing the ship’s approaching an iceberg, but encouraging calm as he inflates his life vest. (Spoiler: That ship is probably going to sink.)

Source

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

More relevant now than ever before...

Obama responds to Akin's rape comment

In a surprise news conference Monday, President Barack Obama addressed the controversy surrounding a remark by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) that women who suffer "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant.

"The views expressed were offensive," said Obama. "Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me. So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."

The comments are the most high profile in a series of rebukes from both Democrats and Republicans. Earlier in the day, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney also condemned Akin, who is running to unseat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Obama did not call on Akin to leave the race, as some Republicans have done. "He was nominated by the Republicans in Missouri," he said, "I will let them sort that out." He did, however, use the opportunity to contrast his approach toward women's health care with that of the GOP.

"Although these particular comments have led Governor Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions, or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape, I think those are broader issues," Obama said. "And that is a significant difference in approach between me and the other party."

Source