Archive

Monthly Archives: July 2012

(Emily Berl for The New York Times) Obama supporters marched in the NYC Pride parade in June, a month after President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

The platform language approved over the weekend also reiterated the party’s disapproval of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages. The 2008 platform had a similar section.

The Democratic Party’s move comes more than two months after President Obama personally backed the rights of same-sex couples to wed. The president’s reversal — he had said previously that while he could not support same-sex marriage, his views on the issue were “evolving” — was a significant move, though it carried no legal weight.

The Democrats would become the first major party to embrace same-sex marriage. But as historic as the platform would be, the president’s position makes it decidedly less controversial.

News of the platform amendment was first reported by The Washington Blade.

Gay rights supporters praised the Democratic Party’s vote. “Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue.”

The Democratic Party platform that was drafted four years ago, when Mr. Obama was first running for president, called for “full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation,” and for “equal responsibility, benefits and protections.”

But the platform stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriages, in part because Mr. Obama had said he remained opposed.

Despite the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, the issue remains a difficult one for some Democrats, particularly those in the midst of hard-fought re-election campaigns in conservative-leaning states. Those include Tim Kaine, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who is running for Senate in Virginia, and Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana.

And while an increasing number of Republicans are coming around to support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, the Republican Party as an institution is still far from declaring that marriage is for anyone but heterosexuals.

Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, predicted that Democrats will regret their decision to include the marriage plank in their platform.

“There are many places in the country where Democratic candidates will not want to be identified with the gay-marriage party,” Mr. Sprigg said. “I think this is more politically correct than it is politically smart.”

Read the original story at New York Times

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, left,and Sen. Frank Lautenberg announce legislation to restrict online and mail-order ammunition sales.

Washington (CNN) – Two Democratic lawmakers took on the hot-button political issue of gun control Monday, introducing legislation that would effectively ban online ammunition sales.

Longtime gun control advocates Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, introduced the bill that they said would prevent buyers from purchasing unlimited quantities of ammunition through the Internet or through the mail. The bill would also require ammunition dealers to report bulk ammo sales to law enforcement.

“It’s time to close the loophole that’s allowing killers — deranged, insane — and even terrorists to buy ammunition online,” Lautenberg said Monday at a news conference on the steps of Manhattan’s City Hall. “You don’t have to be a scientist to understand how wrong this is.”

The lawmakers pointed to the Colorado mass shooting earlier this month, where police in Aurora said movie shooting suspect James Holmes purchased more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition online.

Holmes faces 24 murder counts

On Monday, Holmes was charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder in the slayings of 12 people who had packed a screening of the latest Batman movie that began shortly after midnight on July 20. Fifty-eight people were injured in the incident.

“When you buy a gun on the Internet, you have go to a store to pick that gun up,” McCarthy said. “Well if you’re going to be buying these kinds of large amounts of ammunition, you know what? Somebody should see your face.”

Democratic strategists see gun control as political dynamite. Many Democrats blame Al Gore’s 2000 presidential election loss on his failure to win conservative states, an outcome they said was due in part to Gore’s push for gun control.

And many members of Congress admittedly do not want to run afoul of the powerful and well-funded National Rifle Association.

Many Democrats won’t touch gun control

Last week, Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, who represents a pro-gun congressional district, told CNN the NRA “carries with it a threat … that if you speak against any point of gun control, you automatically face a political threat.”

In fact, the Democratic-led Senate has not voted on any gun legislation in three years, since defeating a 2009 GOP measure that would have required states to recognize each other’s gun laws.

President Barack Obama on Thursday made his strongest comments yet on the issue, advocating a “common sense” approach to gun control that would prevent a “mentally unbalanced individual” from obtaining assault weapons. But he treaded carefully and did not push for new gun laws.

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”

Lautenberg and McCarthy’s proposed Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act would require ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians. It also requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.

Lautenberg recognized that changing gun laws is a challenge.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who controls the Senate’s agenda, said Thursday, “With the schedule we have, we’re not going to get into the debate on gun control.”

House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that existing laws should be enforced. “AK-47s, all right, are not allowed to be in the hands of criminals. That is the law,” he said.

Nonetheless, Lautenberg said he thinks the bill’s chances are “pretty good.”

“It’s going to be acted upon next week, and we’re very optimistic,” Lautenberg said.

Read the original story at CNN

(Image Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WARSAW, Poland – A Mitt Romney spokesman reprimanded reporters traveling with the candidate on his six-day foreign trip this morning, telling them to  “kiss my a**” after they shouted questions from behind a rope line.

As Romney left the site of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw and walked toward his motorcade parked in Pilsudski Square, reporters began shouting questions from the line where campaign staffers had told them to stay behind, prompting traveling press secretary Rick Gorka to tell a group of reporters to “kiss my a**” and “shove it.”

He later apologized.

As Romney wrapped up his visit to the historical site, a CNN reporter had yelled, “Governor Romney, are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip.”

“Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?” a New York Times reporter shouted.

“What about your gaffes?” yelled a Washington Post reporter, referring to a number of missteps the candidate has made during his trip, including one in which he said there were some “disconcerting” developments leading up to the London Olympics, drawing the ire of the British media, and another suggesting that  culture was to blame for the difference in economic success between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Romney campaign has called the reports on the candidate’s remarks about Palestinians a “gross mischaracterization.”

Gorka told reporters answering questions to “show some respect.”

“This is a holy site for the Polish people,” he added.

“We haven’t had another chance to ask a question,” one reporter noted to Gorka.

Gorka told another journalist to “shove it.”

Romney last took questions — three — from the traveling press corps Thursday in London. Romney did not address the media that’s flying with him on any of the three charter flights — two that lasted more than four hours — either. Romney has conducted several television interviews during the trip.

Gorka later called both reporters to apologize for his remarks, telling one that he was “inappropriate.”

ABC News reached out to Gorka for an additional comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Read the original story at ABC News

Touring U.S. allies this week in his first foreign trip as the likely Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney often appeared to be visiting just another set of swing states, pleasing audiences with parochial promises, puzzling others with off-the-cuff remarks, and raising loads and loads of money.

Only the trip was designed to be more than that for a campaign playing catch-up — a chance to show that a former governor light on foreign policy qualifications could represent the United States abroad. On that, the verdict is still out.

Romney’s international-foray-as-campaign-tour was epitomized by his centerpiece stay in Israel, where on Monday he told an audience of American donors that the sluggish Palestinian economy is plagued more by “cultural” differences than by the strictures of the decades-old Israeli occupation.

“I was thinking this morning as I prepared to come into this room of a discussion I had across the country in the United States about my perceptions about differences between countries,” Romney told the gathering at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, where he raised more than $1 million.

The assessment is one not widely shared within Israel, and suggested a lack of sustained study or nuanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

He went on to compare Israel’s economy with that of the Palestinian territories, which he seemed to suggest make up a country of their own. He said that Israel’s annual per-capita gross domestic product is $21,000 — it is actually $32,282 — and that the Palestinian figure is $10,000 — more than five times as large as it actually is.

“You notice a dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality,” Romney noted. “And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.”

Despite the missteps from London to Jerusalem, political analysts say the legacy of Romney’s trip will have little effect on a U.S. election that will be decided by economic conditions at home.

“This really is an election about the economy,” said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, a nonprofit organization that promotes a two-state solution to the conflict.

Ibish contrasted this election to the one four years ago, when, at a time of two wars, foreign policy was a chief concern for voters.

But, he said, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “this issue, in particular, has fallen off the map of U.S. foreign policy attention.” He predicted that Romney probably will not suffer politically for the position he has taken this week.

“It might be effective politics, especially with fundraising,” Ibish said. “But to those who know the issue, his comments do not reflect the actual challenges facing the Palestinian economy.”

For months, Romney has called President Obama a weak leader who is more inclined to appease antagonists than assert American power on behalf of U.S. interests and allies.

So his six-day visit to some of the nations most friendly to the United States offered Romney an opportunity to detail his differences with a president who, excluding Israel, is still highly popular in many nations .

Romney has distinguished himself from Obama, but perhaps in ways he did not immediately intend.

From a tactical point of view, Romney has faltered at times in trying to prove that he has the policy expertise, personal skills and cultural intelligence to represent the country abroad.

At the same time, Romney has tried to follow an unwritten rule of American campaigning: Don’t criticize the president while on foreign soil.

But he has struggled with another unwritten rule — one that applies to travel more generally: It is also a bad idea to criticize foreigners while on foreign soil.

He started by insulting the conservative leader of Britain, the United States’ closest ally, by questioning the nation’s readiness for the Olympics. Prime Minister David Cameron shot back that Salt Lake City, where Romney organized the Winter Olympics in 2002, is in “the middle of nowhere.”

Romney’s advisers have argued that Obama — who ended the Iraq war, ordered the operation that killed Osama bin Laden and emphasized alliances at a time of austerity at home — is vulnerable in the area of foreign policy. Recent polling disagrees.

But the former governor offered few specifics on how he would change U.S. foreign policy. And on such key issues as stopping Iran’s nuclear program and ending the Afghan war, his policies appear nearly identical to the president’s.

Obama, though, is more vulnerable on his management of the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort. In seeking balance between the two sides during his time in office, especially early on, Obama has instead seen his support fall with each of them.

Romney, by contrast, made no attempt in Jerusalem to portray himself as an impartial mediator.

In a speech delivered against a backdrop of the Old City, Romney declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital, even though the United States does not recognize it as such. Israel annexed East Jerusalem — including the Old City, the site of Judaism’s holiest place — after the 1967 Middle East War.

But the annexation is not recognized internationally. The U.S. Embassy is in Tel Aviv, as are the diplomatic missions of most other countries.

Dan Senor, one of Romney’s senior foreign policy advisers, suggested to reporters that the millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendents would have to renounce their historic claim to return to land inside Israel under any final peace agreement.

The Palestinian “right of return”and the status of Jerusalem are the conflict’s most vexing issues. Obama and his predecessors have said they should be part of the “final status” negotiations between the two parties, not pre-judged by outside parties.

But it was Romney’s views on the Palestinian economy and culture that exposed the biggest gulf between Obama’s position and his regarding the conflict — and, perhaps, his overall sense of foreign affairs.

In his 2010 book, “No Apology,” Romney referred in a chapter titled “The Culture of Citizenship” to the Palestinians as Israel’s “neighbors.”

“How could Israelis have created a highly developed, technology-based economy while their Palestinian neighbors had not yet even begun to move to an industrial economy?” he wrote. He wrote that he drew such conclusions from his travels.

Israel controls all cargo crossings into the Palestinian territories — only a pedestrian crossing at Rafah between Gaza and Egypt is under Palestinian control — and the Israeli shekel is the Palestinian currency.

Much of the West Bank economy relies on international aid and a large public sector. Israeli military checkpoints make transport difficult, some West Bank roads are reserved for Israeli travelers, and Israeli military closures of the territories can hang up trade for days.

The economic lifeblood of Gaza, once a manufacturing hub for Israeli furniture companies, is now a thriving smuggling trade in cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, weapons and even cars through the tunnels beneath its southern border with the Sinai.

“If you could learn anything from the economic history of the world, it’s this: Culture makes all the difference,” Romney told donors, who raised $25,000 to $50,000 to attend. “Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.”

Read the original story at Washington Post

Here are the two great campaign mysteries at midsummer: Why does Mitt Romney appear to be getting so much traction from ripping a few of President Obama’s words out of context? And why aren’t Romney and other Republicans moving to the political center as the election approaches?

Both mysteries point to an important fact about the 2012 campaign: For conservatives, this is a go-for-broke election. They and a Republican Party now under their control hope to eke out a narrow victory in November on the basis of a quite radical program that includes more tax cuts for the rich, deep reductions in domestic spending, big increases in military spending and a sharp rollback in government regulation.

In the process, the right hopes to redefine middle-of-the-road policies as “left wing,” thereby altering the balance in the American political debate.

What should alarm both liberals and moderates is that this is the rare election in which such a strategy has a chance of succeeding. Conservatives have their opening not because the country has moved far to the right but courtesy of economic discontent, partisan polarization and the right’s success in defining Obama as standing well to the left of where he actually does.

The Obama campaign is trying to disrupt this narrative on multiple fronts. Why did Obama respond so quickly and forcefully to Romney’s effort to use the president’s “you didn’t build that” quotation as a way of casting him as an enemy of small business? It’s not that the attack was true. In fact, it was blatantly false, given that in the samespeech Obama praised “hard work,” “responsibility” and “individual initiative.”

The words did, however, play to a stereotype of Obama as an advocate of big government who mistrusts business. The distortion resonated, said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, because key voter groups that Romney is trying to win suspect the four words reflect “secretly what he [Obama] believes.”

Moreover, Republicans want to recast the Obama campaign’s most effective line of attack — that Romney is a very wealthy out-of-touch financier who “pioneered” the outsourcing of jobs, kept a lot of money in foreign accounts and refuses to release additional tax returns — as being less about Romney than about the president’s supposed hostility to “success” and to business. Much is riding on the interpretation (or willful misinterpretation) of a short sentence in a long speech.

The go-for-broke strategy has a chance for another reason: In this election, the number of genuine, middle-of-the-road swing voters is very small. For both candidates, this puts a premium not only on high turnout among party base groups but also on very large victory margins within them. McInturff thinks we may be moving from an electoral model based on swing or undecided voters to a world of what he calls “committed versus elastic” voter groups.

For example, it is widely agreed that white working-class voters will support Romney. But much depends upon Romney’s margin among them. If Obama holds Romney’s lead in the white working class to around 15 points, he likely wins. Romney can win if he pushes his advantage with these less well-off voters to 25 points or more. Obama’s Bain/tax returns offensive against Romney is aimed directly at this constituency.

Similarly, Romney will lose the Latino vote by a landslide. But holding his deficit to, say, 30 points instead of 40 will matter. And by portraying Obama as anti-business, McInturff said, Romney could gain ground among college-educated white men. In the pollster’s terms, what matters is the “elasticity” in all these constituencies.

The potential flaw in the conservative strategy could turn out to be reality itself. Obama’s actual record is neither left wing nor anti-business. Public opinion is strongly hostile to many items on the conservative agenda. Most voters, for example, reject the idea that more tax cuts for the wealthy are central to future prosperity. Much of the domestic spending that Republicans would reduce has strong support, one reason Romney avoids budget specifics.

Republicans want to play down the implications of what they would do in power and paint Obama as someone he isn’t. Normally, this strategy wouldn’t work. But this is a moment when abnormal levels of economic turmoil are feeding a profound mistrust of government. Conservatives are making a large bet that if ever there was a year when they could mainstream out-of-the-mainstream ideas, this is it.

Read the original opinion at Washington Post

In Jerusalem, Romney used Talmudic references and Tisha B’Av to suggest the U.S. should never publicly disagree with Israel’s actions and to virtually deny Palestinian humanity. That may help him win Jewish votes, but it is bad Judaism, says Peter Beinart.

Mitt Romney visits the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City on Sunday. (Lior Mizrahi / Getty Images)

Mitt Romney should stick to Mormonism. Yesterday in Jerusalem, the GOP presumptive nominee offered some thoughts on Tisha B’Av, the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples, and various other calamities, in Jewish history. Tisha B’Av, he declared, “calls forth clarity and resolve,” because as in the past, today “Israel faces enemies who deny past crimes against the Jewish people and seek to commit new ones.” He then went on to talk about, you guessed it, Iran.

Sorry, but that largely misses the point. Tisha B’Av is less about steeling Jewish resolve against our enemies than fostering self-reflection about the Jewish misdeeds that allowed those enemies to prevail. The Talmud says that God allowed the Babylonians to destroy the First Temple because the Jews committed idolatry, bloodshed, and sexual sins. Similarly, the Romans are bit players in the Talmud’s intricate explanation of the chain of Jewish sins that led to the Second Temple being destroyed. Among those sins—none of which easily lends itself to a GOP stump speech—are “baseless hatred” among Jews and a concern for ritual stringency so obsessive that it trumps concern for human life.

In his Jerusalem speech, Romney went on to insist that “we cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism.” But Tisha B’Av is all about the importance of criticizing Jewish behavior; that’s why, on the Sabbath before it, we read a portion of the Torah in which Moses rebukes the Jewish people before they enter the land of Israel. Obviously, some criticism truly is destructive and unfair. But to use Tisha B’Av to suggest that the country that most clearly wishes Israel well—the United States—should never publicly disagree with Israel’s actions isn’t just bad foreign policy. It’s bad Judaism.

It’s no surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly urged Romney to come to Israel during Tisha B’Av. Bibi has a history of using Jewish holidays to buttress his apocalyptic worldview. In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March, the Israeli prime minister concluded his denunciation of Iran’s nuclear program by referencing the festival of Purim. “Some 2,500 years ago,” he said, “a Persian anti-Semite [hint, hint] tried to annihilate the Jewish people … His plot was foiled by one courageous woman: Esther. In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people.”

Well, yes, but the Book of Esther also records that after Esther convinced the Persian king to save the Jews from the wicked Haman, he gave those Jews license to take revenge, after which they “smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction.” The message of Purim, in other words, is not merely that Jews need “clarity and resolve” against their enemies. It’s also that in fighting those enemies, Jews can commit abuses of their own.

And while it’s true, as Netanyahu said, that “in every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people,” Jewish tradition urges humility about our capacity to determine who those people are. Legend has it that Haman was a descendant of Amalek, the über-bad guy whose tribe attacked the Jews when they were fleeing Egypt and whom the Jews are commanded to utterly destroy. Netanyahu has roped Amalek into the Iran debate as well. In 2009, when Jeffrey Goldberg asked a Netanyahu adviser how the prime minister feels about the Iranian threat, the adviser replied: “Think Amalek.”

The only problem with that formulation is that according to the Talmud, we can no longer identify the descendants of Amalek, because over time they were dispersed among the nations. To be sure, the Amalekites’ evil attributes—especially their tendency to prey upon the weak—endure. But some Jewish thinkers suggest that there is a little bit of Amalek in all of us, and that while we fight the evil in others, we must also fight the evil in ourselves. Indeed, Amalek himself was a descendant of Esau, Isaac’s mistreated and wayward son. And in that way, too, Jewish tradition reminds us that we are more intimately connected to those we hate and fear than we like to admit.

In Romney’s foray into Judaism, none of that humility or self-criticism appears, which isn’t surprising, since it is absent from his Americanism as well. The U.S. and Israel, he declared in Jerusalem, are “part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice … We both believe in the rule of law, knowing that in its absence, willful men may incline to oppress the weak.”

Yes and no. Israel certainly is a democracy inside the green line, one in which the rule of law does sometimes impressively protect the weak. But in the West Bank, the strong and the weak live under a different law. Jews enjoy due process; Palestinians are tried by military courts. Between 2005 and 2010, according to the Israeli human-rights group B’Tselem, 835 Palestinian minors were arrested in the West Bank on charges of stone throwing. One was acquitted.

Does that bother Romney? Evidently not. In the spirit of his backer, Sheldon Adelson, who has called the Palestinians an “invented people,” Romney didn’t utter the word “Palestinian” in his Jerusalem speech. He talked about Hamas and terrorism and “the enemies of civilization,” but he never named the human beings who share the country and the city upon which he lavished praise.

What a strange twist of fate. Seventy-five years ago, some of the most powerful men in the world denied Jewish humanity. Today some of the most powerful men in the world deny Palestinian humanity because they think it will win them Jewish votes. Another reason for sadness and self-reflection on this Tisha B’Av.

Peter Beinart is editor of Open Zion and author of The Crisis of Zionism.

Read the original post at the Daily Beast

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton is set to play a central part in the Democratic convention, aides said, and will formally place President Obama’s name into nomination by delivering a prime-time speech designed to present a forceful economic argument for why Mr. Obama deserves to win a second term.

(Jewel Samad/Agence France/Presse/Getty Images) President Obama and Bill Clinton in June. On Sept 5, the former president will place Obama’s name into nomination.

The prominent role of Mr. Clinton, which is scheduled to be announced on Monday, signals an effort by the Obama campaign to pull out all the stops to rally Democrats when they gather for their party’s national convention in Charlotte, N.C. An even more important audience will be the voters across the country who will see the address carried by television networks.

“There isn’t anybody on the planet who has a greater perspective on not just the last four years, but the last two decades, than Bill Clinton,” David Axelrod, a top strategist to the Obama campaign, said in an interview on Sunday. “He can really articulate the choice that is before people.”

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will appear on the final night of the convention, making the case for Mr. Obama before the largest audience of the week during an outdoor speech at the Bank of America Stadium. The vice president and Mr. Obama will appear together on stage before they accept the party’s nomination for a second term in the White House.

It is unusual in recent election cycles, although not without precedent, for the vice president not to get the stage to himself during a night at the convention. But in his speech, aides said, Mr. Biden is expected to remind Americans about the last four years and the administration’s accomplishments in a difficult economic climate.

The invitation for Mr. Clinton to be center stage at the convention signifies another milestone in the complicated and evolving relationship between the two presidents.

At the party’s convention in Denver four years ago, all eyes were on Mr. Clinton as he offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Obama in a speech that served as something of a truce after a contentious primary fight with his wife.

For Mr. Clinton, who has become one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, the speech will be among the most high-profile roles yet that he has assumed for Mr. Obama. The address is intended to offer a strong contrast with the Republican ticket and will be closely watched, particularly given a string of blunt statements — and retractions — that Mr. Clinton has made this year when talking about the Obama administration.

For example, Mr. Clinton called for temporarily extending all of the tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, including the Bush-era rates, which put him at odds with the president. He later apologized for those comments, but not before the Republican National Committee seized on the controversy.

Cheney on ’08 Palin Choice

Dick Cheney said on Sunday that Sarah Palin was not ready in 2008 to be his successor as vice president and that Senator John McCain’s decision was “a mistake” that Mitt Romney should seek to avoid making in his own choice of running mate.

Speaking to ABC News in his first interview since undergoing a heart transplant in March, Mr. Cheney said Mr. McCain’s choice clearly reflected considerations other than Ms. Palin’s ability to serve as vice president.

Asked whether a presidential candidate should consider how well a vice-presidential nominee might appeal in a particular state or to a demographic group, Mr. Cheney said, “Those are important issues, but they should never be allowed to override that first proposition.”

Read the original story at New York Times

It seems that President Barack Obama is still insisting that Israel give half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and presumably return to Israel’s indefensible 1967 borders as they existed prior to the Six-Day War.

Last Thursday 26 July during the White House press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney refused to identify Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.  The Weekly Standard reported,

Carney would not say whether President Obama believe[s] it’s Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. For nearly a minute, in response to repeated questioning, Carney only says that “our position hasn’t changed” and that he hasn’t gotten that question in a while.

In May 2011, President Barack Obama supported the Palestinian demand that Israel return to its1967 borders as a prerequisite to peace with Palestine.  To comply with Obama’s demands would have sealed the destruction of Israel, as Israel would not be able to adequately defend itself if it were to return to the borders that existed prior to the Six-Day War.  As a result of the Six-Day War, the Old City of Jerusalem again became a part of Israel.

It was Israel’s borders in 1967 that caused the war in the first place.  Israel’s borders made Israel vulnerable and emboldened the Arabs to attack Israel.  Muslims attack when they view their enemies to be weak and vulnerable.

Israel would be committing suicide by giving up any land.  The land Israel holds was taken fairly in war and kept for national security.  The United States government has during the past Administration assured Israel that it would not again be asked to give up any land to its enemies.

Israel now has Iran promising to eliminate Israel with nuclear weapons as soon as Iran can produce them.  Palestinians are demanding Israel give up territory, which they will use to launch weapons into Israel.  Syria wants the Golan Heights so it can use the Heights to better shell Israel from high ground.  The Egyptian people are pushing for war with Israel.

Obama also wants tens of thousands of Palestinians and other Muslims admitted as citizens to Israel.  Having more of the enemy inside of Israel could destabilize Israel and give Radical Islam more opportunities to strike from inside of Israel.

There have been two decisive actions of President Obama that have significantly weakened both the United States and Israel and have given considerable aid and comfort to the enemies of Israel and the United States.  1) Obama slashed our missile shield development and deployment.  Israel would have greatly benefited from our advancing missile shield technology to protect it from Iran.  2) Obama stopped the F-22 production, even though Israel, NATO, Japan, Britain, Taiwan, and other allies would have purchased the F-22 by the hundreds.  Israel is now more vulnerable as it does not have the F-22 to clear its enemies from the skies and to take out their ground-to-air defenses and neither do we.

What are we to make of the actions of President Obama?  At the least, Obama is a major embarrassment to our great nation and to the exceptional history of the American people.  At the worst, Obama continues to give aid and comfort to our enemies and to the enemies of Israel.

Obama has narrowed Israel’s choices to war and to more war.  The only logical approach Israel has now with the Palestinians is to tell them to choose to live in peace and to become civilized or to be destroyed.  Israel must now deal militarily with Iran before Iran has an operational deliverable nuclear weapon.  Obama has pushed Israel, one of our staunchest allies, so far into a corner that its strategic nuclear weapons must be brought to hair trigger alert.

Read the original story at Mr. Conservative Blog (Lubbock Online)

PHILADELPHIA — Ask Americans how race relations have changed under their first black president and they are ready with answers.

Ashley Ray, a white woman, hears more people debating racial issues. “I know a lot of people who really thought we were OK as a nation, a culture, and now they understand that we’re not,” she says.

Karl Douglass, a black man, sees stereotypes easing. “White people deal with me and my family differently,” he says.

Jose Lozano, who is Hispanic by way of Puerto Rico, believes prejudice is emerging from the shadows. “Now the racism is coming out,” he says.

In the afterglow of Barack Obama’s historic victory, most people in the United States believed that race relations would improve. Nearly four years later, has that dream come true? Americans have no shortage of thoughtful opinions, and no consensus.

As the nation moves toward the multiracial future heralded by this son of an African father and white mother, the events of Obama’s first term, and what people make of them, help trace the racial arc of his presidency.

Shortly before the 2008 election, 56 percent of Americans surveyed by the Gallup organization said that race relations would improve if Obama were elected. One day after his victory, 70 percent said race relations would improve and only 10 percent predicted they would get worse.

Just weeks after taking office, Obama said, “There was justifiable pride on the part of the country that we had taken a step to move us beyond some of the searing legacies of racial discrimination.”

Then he joked, “But that lasted about a day.”

Or, rather, three months.

By July 2009, the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested for yelling at a white police officer who questioned whether Gates had broken into his own home. Asked to comment, Obama said he didn’t know all the facts, but Gates was a personal friend and the officer had acted “stupidly.”

The uproar was immediate. Obama acknowledged afterward, “I could’ve calibrated those words differently.”

Ed Cattaneo, a retired computer training manager from Cape May, N.J., points to that episode as evidence of how Obama has hurt race relations.

“He’s made them terrible,” says Cattaneo, who is white. He also sees Obama as siding against white people through actions such as his Justice Department’s decision to drop voter intimidation charges against New Black Panthers and in a program to turn out the black vote called “African-Americans for Obama.”

Larry Sharkey, also white, draws different conclusions from the past four years.

“Attitudes are much better,” Sharkey says as he slices raw meat in a Philadelphia butcher shop. He remembers welcoming a black family that moved next door to him 20 years ago in Claymont, Del. A white neighbor advised him not to associate with the new arrivals, warning, “Your property values are going to go down.”

That kind of thing would never happen today, Sharkey says.

As Obama dealt with fallout from the Gates affair during the summer of 2009, the tea party coalesced out of opposition to Obama’s stimulus and health care proposals. The vast majority of tea partyers were white. A small number of them displayed racist signs or were connected to white supremacist groups, prompting the question: Are Obama’s opponents motivated by dislike of the president’s policies, his race – or both?

As that debate grew, Obama retreated to the race-neutral stance that has been a hallmark of his career. An October 2009 Gallup poll showed a large drop in racial optimism since the election, with 41 percent of respondents saying that race relations had improved under Obama. Thirty-five percent said there was no change and 22 percent said race relations were worse.

The president has discussed race in occasional speeches to groups such as the National Urban League or the National Council of La Raza, and in interviews with Hispanic and African-American media outlets. But he usually walks a careful line, allowing the nation to get used to the idea of a black president without doing things to make race seem a central aspect of his governance.

“There is a totally different psychological frame of reference that this country has never had,” says William Smith, executive director of the National Center for Race Amity at Wheelock College.

He cites evidence of progress from the mindset of children in his programs to new history curriculums in Deep South schools.

“To me, that’s a quantum leap,” Smith says.

Douglass, a real estate agent from Columbus, Ga., says white people seem less surprised to see him with his wife and daughter in places such as an art museum or a foreign language school.

“I think white people deal with me and my family differently since an African-American man is leader of the free world and a nuclear black family lives in the White House,” he says.

But Steven Chen, an Asian-American graduate student in Philadelphia, points to racial rhetoric he has heard directed toward Obama, in person and online, as proof that race relations have deteriorated.

He also has observed a more visible sign of division: fewer Obama T-shirts.

“When he was elected, it was an American thing. People of all races wore them,” says Chen. “Today it’s a distinctly black phenomenon.”

Ray, a graduate school administrator from Chicago, is uncertain whether race relations have remained the same or gotten worse.

It’s good that people are talking about race more, she says, “but I know quite a few people who are sick of those discussions and blame him for all of it.”

In the summer of 2010, race and politics collided again when Arizona Republicans passed an immigration law that critics said would lead to racial profiling of Hispanics.

Lozano, the police sergeant, remembers that when Obama visited Arizona and met with the governor, who supported the law, she wagged an angry finger in the president’s face.

“That was ugly, I’ve never seen anything like that,” says Lozano, who also is vice president of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers. “There’s no way that would have ever happened to a white president.”

By the fall of 2010, Republicans had triumphed in the midterm elections and made history by electing Hispanic and Indian-American governors in New Mexico, South Carolina, and Nevada. Two black Republicans also went to Congress, from South Carolina and Florida.

Less than a year later, an August 2011 Gallup poll showed a further decline in racial optimism: 35 percent said race relations had improved due to Obama’s election, 41 percent said no change, and 23 percent said things were worse.

Around this time, some African-American lawmakers and pundits openly complained about the president’s refusal to specifically target any programs at high black unemployment. An interviewer from Black Entertainment Television asked Obama why not.

“That’s not how America works,” Obama replied.

Then came this February’s killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, whose father is white and mother is from Peru. Authorities initially declined to charge Zimmerman with a crime, causing a polarizing uproar.

This time, when asked about the case, Obama delivered a carefully calibrated message. He said all the facts were not known, the legal system should take its course – and that “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

The comment was factual, but it still strikes Cattaneo as a coded message to black people that Obama is on their side. “A lot of people I talk to can’t understand why a man who’s half-white and half-black is so anti-white.”

This April, in a poll by the National Journal and the University of Phoenix, 33 percent felt race relations were getting better, 23 percent said they were getting worse, and 42 percent said they were staying about the same.

So where are we now?

Four years after Obama smashed the nation’s highest racial barrier, and less than four months before America will decide whether he deserves a second term, the nation is uncertain about the meaning of a black president.

Recently, Obama was asked in a Rolling Stone magazine interview if race relations were any different than when he took office.

“I never bought into the notion,” Obama said, “that by electing me, somehow we were entering into a postracial period.”

Read the original story at Huffington Post

“Barack Obama on the Economy”

— headline in a Romney campaign ad, followed by President Obama speaking:

“We tried our plan — and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”

Another day, another out-of-context quote?

Readers should be very wary of television ads showing a snippet of the opposing candidate speaking. There is often too much context missing.

Both campaigns have crossed the foul line in this regard (remember Mitt Romney supposedly saying he liked to fire people?) but this is the second week in a row we have had to examine how the Romney campaign is using one of the president’s quotes. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

There is a dead giveaway here that something is missing: Why would Obama be bragging that his plan “worked” when the unemployment rate is still above 8 percent? That doesn’t sound like smart politics.

The reason for Obama’s statement becomes clear when the preceding sentences are read. (The section used in the ad is in bold type.) Remember that he is speaking to fellow Democrats at a fundraising event.

I’m running because I believe you can’t reduce the deficit — which is a serious problem, we’ve got to deal with it — but we can’t reduce it without asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to give up the tax cuts that we’ve been getting for a decade. I’ll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan,we tried our plan — and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.

In other words, in an inelegant way, Obama is trying to compare Democratic philosophy (raise taxes on the wealthy — “our plan”) with Republican philosophy (don’t raise any taxes — “their plan”). He also appears to be trying to hitch his presidency to the economic success of the Clinton years. He can rightly argue that he’s never had a chance to do what Bill Clinton did — raise taxes on the wealthy — because Republicans have blocked his efforts.

But as we have repeatedly said, it is rather silly to think the economy can be divided into such neat presidential-term chunks.

Some would argue that some of the seeds for the disastrous economy at the end of George W. Bush’s term were planted during Clinton’s presidency (breaking down the walls between commercial and investment banks, for instance). Clinton also benefited from some luck — a surge in stock prices for technology companies in the mid-1990s. The bubble later burst, but not before significantly boosting federal revenue (and eliminating the deficit) with taxes on capital gains.

Thus, as an argument, Obama is really pushing the envelope in suggesting that the boom times of the Clinton era are directly attributable to Clinton’s tax increases. (We have already dinged Obama for suggesting in this passage that tax rates will be the same as under Clinton, since that’s not right.)

Still . . . the Romney ad starts off by claiming that Obama is talking about today’s economy. And then the ad is filled with comments from ordinary Americans about how they are suffering today.

Romney senior advisor Eric Fehrnstrom strongly defends the use of the clip. “Obama can’t have it both ways on this. He’s either running on the Clinton record, which is completely superior to his own,” he said. “Or Obama’s running on his record, which is a failure and why his campaign is now in the awkward position of saying the president was not referring to his own plans when he made the ‘it worked’ statement.”

The Pinocchio Test

It may well be disingenuous of Obama to wrap his policies in the mantle of Bill Clinton, but he was talking to a roomful of Democrats. We also make some allowances for awkward language uttered off the cuff, especially if it appears to be a one-time statement. (The Romney campaign did not supply any other examples of Obama claiming his economic plan worked.)

In any case, the Romney campaign clearly ripped these words out of context, leaving them untethered from their original meaning — in order to score political points in a highly misleading way. Obama was not talking about today’s economy, but about different philosophies of taxation.

Four Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .

Track each presidential candidate’s campaign ads

Read our biggest Pinocchios

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 801 other followers