Last week, Glenn Beck hosted David Barton for a discussion on the importance of prayer and fasting heading into this election, which Beck kicked off by pointing to the iconic, though historically dubious, myth of George Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge to make the point that this nation was birthed in prayer.
Eventually, the topic turned toward the current election, where Beck admitted that though Mitt Romney was not his first choice to be the Republican presidential nominee, he feels good about the upcoming election, as does everyone Beck considers to be a "spiritual giant," despite the fact that "nothing looks good" and all the polls and campaign developments are telling him that there is "no reason that I should feel good on this."
But it is exactly the dire state of the campaign that is making Beck so confident because, as he said, "God is trying to make this so clear to us that, if it happens, it's His finger" as both Beck and Barton went on to credit Romney's deep spiritual life and compare him to George Washington:
Back in July, the Boston Globe reported that Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly stated he left his job at Bain Capital in 1999, was listed on the company’s tax filings as its CEO through 2002. Romney’s campaign later, and confusingly, stated that he had retired “retroactively” from the firm.
The discrepancy wasn’t just about a footnote in Romney’s resume. It was critical to the whole story Romney had been telling about himself, since he had denied involvement in some of the firms more questionable practices during the three years in question.
Now, the Globe reports, MoveOn.org is asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Romney broke the law when he stated on a 2011 campaign ethics filing that his involvement with Bain ended in 1999:
WASHINGTON — A Democratic group supporting President Obama’s reelection has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Republican Mitt Romney violated federal law by stating on a 2011 ethics filing that he was not involved with Bain Capital operations “in any way’’ after 1999.
The Globe, citing numerous Securities and Exchange Commission filings, reported in July that Romney continued to serve as chief executive and chairman of Bain Capital, as well as the principal in a number of Bain-related entities, until as late as 2002.
The organization MoveOn.org Political Action, a liberal group, seized on those discrepancies in a letter dated Thursday to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. The group, citing its own review of the public records, contends that Romney may have violated the False Statements Act by lying on his 2011 federal financial disclosure statement.
In the 2011 disclosure, which Romney was required to submit as a presidential candidate, the former Massachusetts governor stated that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way’’ since Feb. 11, 1999. MoveOn.org contends that appears to be false.
“There is substantial evidence that Governor Romney was in fact involved with the operations of Bain Capital after that date,’’ MoveOn.org said in its letter to the Justice Department. In a press release, the group asserts there is “substantial evidence that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony.’’
On CNN’s website today, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin laments out how small a role the Supreme Court has played in the presidential election so far. He writes:
With a little more than a month to go, it's not too late to ask the candidates to take a stand on their plans for the court. The president has already had two appointments, and he named Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But what does Obama, a former law professor, think about the court? Does he believe in a "living" Constitution, whose meaning evolves over time? Or does he believe, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, that the meaning of the document was fixed when it was ratified, in the 18th century.
By the same token, what kind of justices would Romney appoint? Who are his judicial role models? Romney has praised Chief Justice John Roberts, but is the candidate still a fan even after the chief voted to uphold the ACA?
No one is asking these questions. But there are few more important things to know about our current and future presidents.
Toobin is absolutely right that the candidates’ plans for the Supreme Court deserve a lot more air time than they’re getting. But he’s wrong to suggest that we know nothing about what President Obama and Governor Romney have in mind for the Court.
President Obama has already picked two Supreme Court justices. Both, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have been strong moderates, balancing out the retro extremism of Justices Scalia and Thomas. When female Wal-Mart employees wanted to band together to sue their employer for pay discrimination, Sotomayor and Kagan stood on the side of the women’s rights, while Scalia and Thomas twisted the law to side with the corporation. When Justices Thomas and Scalia ruled that a woman harmed by a generic drug couldn’t sue the drug’s manufacturer in state court, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stood up for the rights of the consumer.
Mitt Romney obviously hasn’t had a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice yet, but he’s given us a pretty good idea of who he would choose if given the opportunity. On his website, Romney promises to “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the health care reform case, Romney announced he had changed his mind about Roberts, who declined to destroy the law while still writing a stunningly retrogressive opinion redefining the Commerce Clause.
And, of course, Romney sent a clear signal to his conservative base when he tapped Robert Bork to advise him on legal and judicial issues. Bork’s record, and what he signals about Romney’s position on the Supreme Court, is chilling:
Romney’s indicated that he would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s even attacked the premise of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that prohibited states from outlawing birth control by establishing a right to privacy.
Yes, the candidates should be made to answer more questions about their plans for the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. But there’s a lot that we already know.
(For more, check out PFAW’s website RomneyCourt.com.)
Mitt Romney took the stage at NBC's Education Nation to double down on his ridiculous past remarks that class size is "irrelevant" and "didn't make a difference." In light of Romney's remarks, American Bridge 21st Century launched ClassSizeMatters.com, featuring a great video and research revealing Romney's disastrous record on education.
Mitt Romney has said that "the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps." As governor, he proposed cutting $18 million in funding for class size reduction in Massachusetts. Yet when it came time to choose a school for his children, the Romneys chose an elite private school with an average class size of eleven students.
Mitt Romney wants small class sizes for his family -- but not for yours.
Learn more at http://classsizematters.com/learn-more/
Stumping in Iowa last year, Mitt Romney famously defended the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, declaring, “Corporations are people, my friend.”
But it turns out there’s one group that Romney thinks should be prohibited from spending money to influence elections: teachers’ unions. Speaking at a forum in New York, Romney expressed his wish for one specific campaign finance restriction:
The bigger problem, Romney said, is that "the person sitting across the table from them should not have received the largest campaign contribution from the teachers union themselves ... [It's] an extraordinary conflict of interest and something that should be addressed."
He later added that "we simply can't have" elected officials who have received large contributions from teachers sitting across from them at the bargaining table "supposedly" to represent the interests of children. "I think it's a mistake," Romney said. "I think we have to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns. It's the wrong way for us to go. We've got to separate that."
Romney’s absolutely right that large campaign contributions and expenditures can improperly influence elected officials. But if he’s going to apply that standard to teachers, he needs to apply it to corporations as well.
Bryan Fischer and Mitt Romney have had a rather contentious relationship going back all the way to last year's Values Voter Summit, when Romney called out Fischer from the stage for his relentless bigotry. Ever since, Fischer has been a vocal critic of Romney personally and a thorn in the side of his campaign, complicated efforts to unify the Religious Right behind Romney heading into the election.
In fact, just last month Fischer dedicated a segment on his radio program to asking listeners to call in and share their opinions about whether he was being too hard on Romney and asking if they thought that his constant criticism of Romney and his campaign was, in the end, helping President Obama.
It was, Fischer said, a relatively simple question:
"Do you want me to keep telling you the sort of honest and sometimes ugly truth about Romney or do you, I don't know how else to put this, do you want me to kind of shade the truth because if I tell the truth about Mitt Romney, it may discourage voters in the pro-family movement?"
Most of the callers told Fischer to keep after Romney and do whatever he could to hold his feet to the fire on the issues that they care about, which is exactly what Fischer argued was necessary in a column he wrote just two weeks ago:
Some conservatives complain when conservative voices such as mine register complaints about Gov. Romney’s agenda. They don’t want his feet held to the fire until after he defeats President Obama. That will be the time, they say, after he’s been elected, to put the pressure on.
But surely this is misguided. If we don’t hold his feet to the fire now, how will it be possible to do it then? If he gets elected while ignoring legitimate conservative concerns, because conservatives haven’t even voiced them, what possible reason do conservatives have to think he’ll pay attention to conservative concerns while in office?
The truth is that conservatives who complain loudly and longly now, in the hopes that the governor can be persuaded to at least sound like a conservative, are doing him the biggest favor of all.
Bottom line: the conservatives who complain vocally about his lurch to the center-left are the best friends he has in the world, and represent his last, best hope of sitting one day in Barack Obama’s empty chair.
But in the last two weeks, Romney has struggled trough serious missteps and revelations that have left his campaign reeling ... and now Fischer has suddenly changed his tune and declared that the time for criticizing Romney has passed and so conservatives need to simply fall into line and hope for the best:
This approach of constructive criticism was appropriate through the primary season, through the conventions, and through the Values Voter Summit two weekends ago. However, with the election less than 50 days away, the time to nudge the governor further to the right is probably past. He has likely been nudged as far as he can be nudged. He is what he is, and with the heat and intensity of a campaign in the stretch run, there simply is not enough time for him to do any further retooling. There isn’t time for a “turnaround” even if it would be a good idea.
The constructive criticism served a good purpose. In response, the governor seems to have embraced the need to deliver a more well-rounded conservative message, offer more in the way of specifics, talk more openly about values issues, and unleash Paul Ryan. Those adjustments, if he will follow through on them, are about all conservatives can expect at this stage of the game.
At some point, the criticism, as well-intended as it might be, becomes counter-productive. From my perspective, we have now reached that point. Ann Romney is probably right to call for a cease-fire from the friendlies.
It’s now time for the conservative community to accept Gov. Romney as he is, realize he is as conservative as he is likely to get, and focus our energies on drawing the significant contrasts between the president and the governor on critical issues such as abortion, marriage, Israel and the economy.
In competitive golf, we have an expression: play it as it lies. If your ball lands in a divot, you play it from the divot. If it lands at the base of a tree, you play it from the base of the tree. You don’t get to kick the ball out in the fairway to get the lie you want.
We’re now at that place with Gov. Romney. Conservatives are clearly playing from an awkward lie with the governor. But winning shots have been hit from bad lies in the past, and they can be hit from bad lies again. It’s time now for conservatives to get the ball as close to the pin as possible on November 6.
As we have said before, for all of the Religious Right's talk of putting principles over politics, when push comes to shove, they always fall in line.
Mitt Romney’s Scalia-filled Supreme Court took to the streets again this week, this time in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Following a successful Romney Court event in Columbus, Ohio, the Romney Court campaign, led in PA by People For the American Way’s Jodi Hirsh, revealed its Scalia-filled Supreme Court in Market Square to inform voters about the dangers of having Mitt Romney nominate Supreme Court justices for lifetime terms.
This piece originally appeared at The Huffington Post.
Mitt Romney got some unwanted attention early this year when he flatly stated, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." When challenged on this remark he assured Americans that the safety net for the very poor was a given, safe from any budget and tax code tinkering in Washington. This was a sinister explanation since Romney's tax and spending plan -- or as much of it as can be deciphered -- calls for further tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social services that he claimed were safe.
Now, we see that it's not just the "very poor" who don't merit Romney's "concern." At the now-infamous $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Florida, Romney wrote off the concerns of the 47 percent of Americans who don't owe federal income taxes, saying that half of Americans are "dependent on government," "believe that they are the victims," and have the gall to "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
That 47 percent includes families and individuals with low incomes -- about 23 percent of taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center. It also includes those for whom tax credits for children and working families have eliminated tax burdens -- about 7 percent. It also includes seniors who have left the workforce -- about 10 percent. Over half of the 47 percent pay federal payroll taxes. All are subject to state and local taxes, many of which, like sales taxes, are more regressive than federal taxes. (And if we ever see more Romney tax returns, we may find some years when the Romney's were in that entitled 47 percent.)
As conservative writer Reihan Salam points out in the National Review, policies like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit -- responsible for much of this tax relief for working families -- were conservative ideas meant to reduce the "dependency" that Romney so reviles, by "encourag[ing] people get on the first rungs of the jobs ladder, and to become less dependent over time."
Romney was telling the well-heeled guests at this fundraising dinner that these people -- middle-class parents, low-income workers, the unemployed, the elderly -- aren't interested in working hard despite the fact that most of them report to the IRS each year that they work quite a lot. This isn't just tin-eared politics. Like Romney's comments on the "very poor," it represents a profound misunderstanding of how Americans' lives work and how his policies would affect those lives.
But even talking about the "47 percent versus the 53 percent" belies the fact that nobody in America is free from at least some government "dependency." We all rely on roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters, police officers, and our military -- even Mitt Romney and his $50,000-a-plate friends. Romney himself has relied on the government's safety net for businesses, securing a federal bailout for Bain & Company. Nobody succeeds without some help from a stable, functional government. That's what President Obama was saying when his "you didn't build that" comments were taken out of context.
Romney was clearly telling his funders a fantasy story that they love to hear. But that story is a lie, and we shouldn't accept it from someone who could become a president representing 100 percent of the American people.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who now serves as a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney, appears to be taking a page from Michele Bachmann with a new claim that the Obama administration is going to begin limiting free speech and expression to prohibit anti-Muslim rhetoric. While speaking to Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio, Bolton agreed with Gaffney that the State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton is working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to curtail the freedom of speech and begin “reinstitute blasphemy laws.” He even warned that there are people within the Obama administration who have hate speech laws “on their agenda” and made the absurd assertion that Secretary Clinton is opposed to the freedom of expression.
Bolton: I am very worried that under the Obama administration we are submitting to this claim that people have to temper their free speech rights to be respectful of what the OIC claims is the appropriate standard. Take the US embassy in Cairo’s first statement which apologize for this film as if appeasement was going to stop the mob from coming over the embassy’s wall, while it’s true that the Obama administration repudiated that statement honestly if you look carefully at what the President and particularly Secretary Clinton said since then they still are apologizing for this act, scurrilous though it might be, of an American private citizen. And it ties in directly — it’s a direct analytical predicate for the claim that it’s the movie that’s the whole problem with the riots and demonstrations in the Middle East. I think this is something that we need a broader public debate about because the notion that somehow we’re going to reinstitute blasphemy laws in the United States is something the overwhelming majority of Americans would react instinctively against.
Gaffney: Yet we are seeing as a result of something called the Istanbul process, which as you mentioned Secretary State Hillary Clinton has been involved, John Bolton, which produced last December a resolution in the Human Rights Council which is aimed at trying to prevent defamation of religions and goes beyond really what Mrs. Clinton has talked about in terms of ‘old fashioned peer pressure and shaming’ as instruments of suppressing free expression that offends Muslims. It seems uniquely geared towards Muslims by the way, I’ve not heard anybody saying we have to be impede people from being critical of Christians or Jews or Hindus or anybody else. But John Bolton to the extent to what we have been seeing elsewhere around the world, notably the prosecution of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Lars Hedegaard in Denmark and Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in Canada to what amounts to hate speech. Do you think we’re on a track in this country, maybe under the guise of incitement, of a similar kind of constraint on freedom of expression if the Obama administration has its way?
Bolton: I think there are people who clearly have that on their agenda; I don’t see how we can blanket that reality. I do think that it comes in with a deceptively cautious approach to say ‘we just want people to be respectful,’ well fine that’s a decision each individual makes. But the whole point of our first amendment which I think distinguishes us from every other country around the world and is another example of American exceptionalism is that the government does not interfere with the content of speech, that is up to the political opinion of each speaker. That favorite liberal icon, Justice Brennan, in that famous iconic case New York Times v. Sullivan, said that debate in America should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and I say I stand with Justice Brennan and against Secretary Clinton on that point.
Mitt Romney this weekend stumped alongside televangelist Pat Robertson, not minding Robertson’s legacy of incendiary, insensitive, heartless and apocalyptic rhetoric that has gotten him in trouble in the past. Apparently, Robertson’s own CBN has become aware of Robertson’s problematic statements, and may even be editing his controversial claims out of episode archives.
For example, today on the 700 Club’s “Bring It On” segment where viewers ask Robertson questions, one man wondered how he should go about repairing his marriage with a wife who “insults” him and once tried to attack him.
“Well, you could become a Muslim and you could beat her,” Robertson responded. “This man’s got to stand up to her and he can’t let her get away with this stuff,” Robertson continued, “I don’t think we condone wife-beating these days but something has got to be done.”
He later said the woman is a “rebellious child” and pondered if she has psychological problems. Robertson told the viewer that since he “can’t divorce her according to the Scripture, so I say: move to Saudi Arabia.”
However, if you watch the show as posted on CBN’s website, Robertson’s words towards the end of the program about Saudi Arabia and wife-beating were noticeably edited out.
The power center that Dick Armey and FreedomWorks have been aggressively building in the U.S. Senate around reigning extremist Jim DeMint will almost certainly welcome Ted Cruz in January. The Republican convention gave most Americans their first look at Cruz, who has become a Tea Party folk hero after crushing the establishment candidate, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in a bitterly contested primary.
Ted Cruz loves to portray his victory as an upwelling from the grassroots, as he did during his Tuesday night speech from the platform. “I have the honor of standing before you this evening for one reason, because thousands upon thousands of grassroots activists stood united, not for a candidate, but for the sake of restoring liberty.”
It is certainly true that his impressive come-from-behind primary victory captured the fervor of anti-government Tea Party activists as well as conservative evangelicals that Cruz has been courting for years at religious right gatherings. But it wasn’t an act of spontaneous combustion. Pouring gasoline on the prairie fire were national right-wing super PACs and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. Club for Growth Action dropped millions into the race on Cruz’s behalf; Jim DeMint’s Tea Party-backing Senate Conservatives Fund also kicked in with seven-figure spending. (DeMint has since cut his formal ties to the group so that it could create a super PAC.) A FreedomWorks spokesperson said after Cruz’s primary that wins by candidates like Cruz would “force Romney to the right.”
Cruz also benefitted from endorsements by an impressive roster of right-wing figures. During the primary he bragged that he was the only candidate this year supported by all four of his favorite senators: DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Pat Toomey. he Cruz campaign used video of a Palin campaign visit for its GOTV efforts. After his primary win an excited Breitbart blogger quoted Sarah Palin’s celebration on Facebook. She wrote that Cruz's victory was a win "both for Ted and for the grassroots Tea Party movement," and that the “message of this race couldn't be clearer for the political establishment: the Tea Party is alive and well and we will not settle for business as usual. Now, it's on to November!”
While the media accurately describes Cruz as a darling of the Tea Party and its corporate backers, he also had strong backing from religious-right figures. Cruz has campaigned for support at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit and the Freedom Federation’s Awakening conference, where he said “we are engaged in spiritual warfare every day.” James Dobson and David Barton are among the religious-right leaders who backed Cruz; Rick Santorum endorsed Cruz on Glenn Beck’s television show.
Cruz embodies Ralph Reed’s desire to merge the Tea Party and religious right. In his convention speech, Cruz talked about the Tea Party movement as a “Great Awakening” – a not-so-subtle shout-out to religious-right leaders who are calling for a spiritual great awakening that they believe will turn the nation back to God and its Christian roots. At Rick Santorum’s event on Wednesday afternoon, Cruz mocked media conversations about divisions between different “chunks” of Republicans, declaring the party united. “We’re all here because we believe in values and principles bigger than ourselves,” he said.
In an interview with CBS News on Monday, Mitt Romney said he disagreed with his own party’s support for criminalizing abortion without exceptions: “My position has been clear throughout this campaign; I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, a major anti-choice group, in an interview with Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association insisted that the Romney campaign told her that Romney does not in fact believe in exceptions for the health of the mother, contradicting what he said in the Monday interview. If he did, Dannenfelser said, he would not have received the endorsement of her anti-choice organization.
Taking over the Supreme Court is an obsession on the far right, and Mitt Romney is on course to do their bidding. Romney selected none other than Robert Bork to serve as his chief judicial advisor.