Category Archives: politics

May 22 2012

We’ve got the President’s back – how about you?

 At a press conference Monday, the President was asked why the campaign is taking a look at Mitt Romney’s record as a corporate buyout specialist, a record Romney’s been claiming as his chief qualification for the presidency.

The President said that while there’s nothing wrong with private equity, Romney’s priority wasn’t to create jobs — it was to maximize profits for partners and investors. A president has to focus on more than just that.

Watch the rest of his response on why Romney’s record should be looked at, then share it far and wide:

Video: President Obama on Romney's record


Share on Facebook    Share on Twitter    Share via Email

President Obama said of Romney, “his main calling card for why he thinks he should be President is his business expertise … And when you’re President, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.”

Folks, that’s what we’re going to be fighting for this year — and it’s up to us to lay out the stark differences between Romney’s views and our President’s. Get our President’s back — pass it on:

http://my.barackobama.com/Truth-Team-May22

May 18 2012

ROMNEY ECONOMICS: Mitt Romney Would Run the Country as He Ran Bain Capital, and the Middle Class Would Suffer

As a businessman, Mitt Romney didn’t care about strengthening companies or creating jobs – he cared most about getting a high return on his investment no matter the cost to workers, companies or communities. The values and lessons Romney learned as a corporate-buyout specialist aren’t the ones we want in the Oval Office.

 Today the campaign released a new part of RomneyEconomics.com, an interactive map that highlights where Mitt Romney’s economic philosophy left companies bankrupt and Americans without jobs.
o Please see the map at www.RomneyEconomics.com/states.
o Please see this new DNC video highlighting the coverage Romney economics is getting, titled “The Bane of Romney’s Existence.”

 As CEO of a financial buyout firm, Romney didn’t care about growing companies and creating jobs. He and his partners cared most about making money for themselves and their investors no matter the cost. They loaded companies up with debt, put thousands out of work and bankrupted companies all so a handful of investors could make a fortune.

 We aren’t questioning Romney’s right to run his business as he wanted, or the private equity industry as a whole. This is about Romney’s values as a businessman, and what they would mean for the economic security of the middle class.

 Romney specialized in buying companies, borrowing money to load them up with debt, and extracting millions in profit for himself and his partners.
o To cut costs, he laid off longtime loyal workers and shipped jobs overseas.
o Those who kept their jobs too often saw paychecks, benefits and pensions cut.
o When the debt became too much, Romney and his partners drove several companies into bankruptcy and walked away with millions.

 Romney’s business values shaped the troubling economic policies he promises today. It’s the same Bush-era formula that benefitted a few, but crashed our economy and undermined security for the middle class and those trying to join it:
o More budget-busting tax cuts weighted to the wealthiest and paid for by the middle class.
o No investing in our nation’s long-term strength through education, decent health care, consumer protections, or our roads and bridges.
o Letting Wall Street and corporations write their own rules again.

 We can’t afford to go back to the same failed policies and wrong values that caused the economic crisis in the first place. Romney economics would hurt the middle class instead of helping it grow.

 President Obama is moving America forward, fighting for an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, responsibility is rewarded, and everyone has a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules.
DEBT: Romney Economics Piled Debt on Companies and Massachusetts Taxpayers – and Would Do the Same to the Entire Country
Key Point: Mitt Romney has no credibility on controlling debt given his $5 trillion tax plan that would blow a hole in the budget, his private-sector record of piling debt on companies and his public sector record of running up debt on constituents.

 Hypocrisy: Romney is in New Hampshire attacking the President on spending and debt. He’s the last person who should lecture Americans about debt and reckless spending.
o Businessman: Romney economics loaded companies up with debt before bankrupting some and made millions of dollars for Romney and his partners while thousands of middle-class workers lost their jobs.
o Governor: Romney economics loaded Massachusetts taxpayers up with debt before he left his successor with a $1 billion deficit and taxpayers with the most per-capita debt in the country. State spending went up by 6.5 percent a year.
o As President: Romney economics promise to do the same thing. He’ll give $5 trillion in tax breaks weighted to millionaires and billionaires without saying how he’ll pay for it – because he knows that no matter what, the middle class will be stuck with the bill.

 Romney is attacking debt created by two unfunded wars started before the President took office. The President responsibly ended the Iraq war and he’s drawing down our combat mission in Afghanistan. Romney wants to keep fighting those wars with no end in sight.

 According to nonpartisan scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending, taxes and deficits are all lower today than when the President took office.
o Please

May 18 2012

GottaVote.org Will Help Americans Understand Their Voting Rights and How to Exercise Them in Their State

VOTING:

Today, Obama for America is launching GottaVote.org, the campaign’s bilingual, cutting-edge resource to help Americans understand their rights to vote, and know how to exercise it in their state. The President’s campaign is about inclusiveness and moving forward, not backward. That’s why we’re trying to get as many Americans involved as possible. That’s the true spirit of our elections and our country.

 After controversies of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, most Americans expected that we would fix our election problems, not make them worse. Unfortunately, many Republican-controlled state legislatures have been taking us backward, not forward, when it comes to voting rights – sometimes changing voter registration rules in the middle of a campaign.

o In 2011, more than 30 states introduced legislation or passed laws making it harder to vote, not easier.

o They closed early-voting windows, election-day registration, and made it more difficult for poll workers to do their jobs.

 As a country, we’re better off when more citizens can access the polls. Voting is a fundamental right, and we all have a vested interest in making sure that as many Americans as possible vote on Election Day.

 That’s why GottaVote.org is so important and is part of the campaign’s aggressive voter-protection program. GottaVote.org answers common questions voters in any state might have, including:
o When do I have to register by?
o What do I need to bring to the polls?
o Can I vote early?
o Where is my polling place?
 GottaVote.org is a one-stop shop for getting the facts on voting, reminders for key dates and deadlines, and alerts on the status of voting rights in state. It’s available in both English and Spanish because different languages shouldn’t keep Americans from voting.

o The Spanish-language website is www.GottaVote.org/es.

 While we’ll have fully armed voter protection teams in precincts across the country on Election Day, protecting the right to vote starts long before November. That’s why on May 19 and 20 the campaign will hold a national GottaVote Weekend of Action to educate voters about state election laws and register new voters to grow the electorate.

 We’ll connect with new voters and help them understand their rights. We’ll bring new people into our strong network of volunteers – training them and our staff on current state election laws.

 We’re doing all this for a simple reason: We’ve never solved anything in America with less democracy. And we won’t now. The President believes in an America where everybody can make their voices heard, regardless of who they are or what party they vote for.

 He believes voting should be easy and accessible. In 2012, we should be taking down roadblocks to voting, not putting up new ones. That’s what GottaVote.org is all about. That’s what our country is all about.

May 14 2012

news clips

Thank You, President Obama
The New Republic // Editorial
Yes, it was a few years too late. Yes, his hand was forced by Joe Biden and Arne Duncan. Yes, his statement is just a statement—it does not change any law. And yes, we shouldn’t minimize the role of an extraordinary civil rights movement—comprising millions of average Americans, gay and straight—in dragging our country over the past two decades toward the current moment, one where a president could feel politically able to take such a stand. But none of this should minimize the significance of what took place yesterday in Washington. President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage was both substantively important and politically brave. And he deserves enormous credit for it.

President Obama’s Moment
New York Times // Editorial
It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country, and it has long been obvious that marriage rights are no exception. President Obama offered some of that leadership on Wednesday. “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC Newsthat the White House arranged for the purpose of giving Mr. Obama a forum to say just that.  With those 10 words, Mr. Obama finally stopped temporizing and “evolving” his position on same-sex marriage and took the moral high ground on what may be the great civil rights struggle of our time. His words will not end the bitter fight over marriage rights, which we fear will continue for years to come. But they were of great symbolic value, and perhaps more. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted, no expansion of rights embraced by a president has failed to become the law of the land.

Obama Winning Investors by 49%-38% Against Romney in Poll
Bloomberg // Mike Dorning
Global investors increasingly prefer President Barack Obama to Republican challenger Mitt Romneyand most say they believe the incumbent will remain in the White House for another four years.  Asked who would be the better leader for the global economy, 49 percent favor Obama against 38 percent for Romney, according to a quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll. In January, the two candidates tied on the question.  By the same margin, they say Obama has a better vision for the U.S. economy, according to the survey of 1,253 Bloomberg customers, who are investors, analysts or traders.

Lugar defeat fits Obama campaign narrative on GOP
Los Angeles Times // Michael Memoli
The defeat of Sen. Dick Lugar in his bid for a seventh term in Indiana has given Democratsnew hope of holding on to their narrow majority in the Senate.  The result could also play out in the race for president, fueling the narrative of an Obama campaign running as much against the tea party-infused Republican Congress as it is against Mitt Romney.  Within an hour of Richard Mourdock being declared the winner, the White Housereleased a statement from Obama hailing Lugar’s “distinguished service.”

Air wars: Americans for Prosperity buying in swing states
Politico // Maggie Haberman
According to a reliable media-buying source, the Koch brothers-affiliated Americans for Prosperity is starting to buy time in swing states, for ads to air in mid May. AFP has been on the air before. But unlike a number of other third-party groups, AFP doesn’t coordinate with the other major player on the right, American Crossroads. The messaging has been a bit disparate from the outside groups – energy or Solyndra, and generally less frontal on the topic of the day, jobs.

Defense spending to spike $2.1 trillion under Romney
CNN // Charles Riley
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Mitt Romney is campaigning on a platform that emphasizes less spending, smaller deficits and renewed fiscal responsibility. But in one budget area, Romney is running the opposite direction. The former Massachusetts governor wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds. By one estimate, additional spending would exceed $2 trillion over the next decade. Romney’s plan calls for linking the Pentagon’s base budget to Gross Domestic Product, and allowing the military to spend at least $4 dollars out of every $100 the American economy produces.

Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents
Washington Post // Jason Horowitz
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. — Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

May 10 2012

Mitt Romney and others on denying civil rights to same sex couples

Today, Mitt Romney reiterated his place with the extreme voices in his party in opposing civil unions, which puts him to the right of George W. Bush, and supporting a federal marriage amendment, which would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and invalidate state laws legalizing same sex marriage. And it would be the first time in history that the Constitution has been amended to discriminate and deny rights. Additionally, he’s funded groups such as the National Organization for Marriage that have engaged in fear-mongering on this issue.

Key Points on Federal Marriage Amendment:

A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and limit American freedoms.

 A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” would prohibit committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying, and prevent courts from guaranteeing same-sex couples the same rights as other Americans.

 State laws allowing gay marriage would be invalidated, and same-sex couples that are already married would likely see their marriages declared void. All states could be required to discriminate against committed same-sex couples, taking this decision away from the states and making it a federal mandate.

If enacted, this would be the first time the Constitution was amended to discriminate and deny rights.

 Our Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, and the amendment process has been used throughout history to expand America freedom. Constitutional amendments have eliminated slavery; given women, racial minorities, and eighteen year olds the right to vote; and guaranteed our rights to free expression, a fair trial, and the free exercise of religion.

 America has never used its constitutional amendment process to discriminate. Indeed, the history of amendments to our Constitution displays a steady march of progress.

ROMNEY REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS “ONE OF THE NATION’S LEADING ADVOCATES OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”

Romney: “I Stood Up To Fight Same Sex Marriage. I Was One Of The Nation’s Leading Advocates Of Traditional Marriage.” [KVRR (Fargo, ND), 3/1/12]

Romney Called Gay Marriage “A Blow To The Family.” [Boston Globe, 2/26/05]

ROMNEY VOWED TO “FIGHT FOR A FEDERAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”

Romney: “When I Am President, I Will Preserve The Defense Of Marriage Act And I Will Fight For A Federal Amendment Defining Marriage As A Relationship Between One Man And One Woman.” [Romney Prepared Remarks, Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/10/12]

Romney: “We Should Have A Constitutional Amendment That Defines Marriage As A Relationship Between A Man And A Woman.” “‘My view is that we should defend the Defense Of Marriage Act and that we should have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman,’ he said, before adding: ‘This path is one that as you watch it, we become more and more of a secular nation.’” [New York Times, 1/16/12; Romney, South Carolina Faith & Freedom Coalition, 1/16/12]

Romney Said He Supported A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage Rather Than Leaving It Up To The States. At the New Hampshire primary debate John King asked, “Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made — this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state’s decision?” … KING: “Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision?” ROMNEY, “Constitutional.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11]

THE FEDERAL “PROTECT MARRIAGE AMENDMENT WOULD ROLL BACK RIGHTS FOR LGBT INDIVIDUALS AND USE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

The Federal Protect Marriage Amendment Would Define Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Could Prevent Courts From Providing Marriage-Like Benefits. Under the proposed amendment, the Constitution would be amended to say: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” [H. J. RES. 88, introduced June 6, 2006]

 “Barack Obama Voted Against The Federal Marriage Amendment In 2006 Which Would Have Defined Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Prevented Judicial Extension Of Marriage-Like Rights To Same-Sex Or Other Unmarried Couples.” [Change.gov, accessed 05/09/2012]

Congressman Jared Nadler Said That A Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage Would Be The First Amendment To Deny Civil Rights To Certain Americans. “And Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, called the president’s proposal ‘shameful.’ ‘By stating his support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the president is trying to write discrimination into the Constitution, for the first time amending our sacred document to deny civil rights to a large number of Americans,’ Mr. Nadler said.” [New York Times, 2/24/04]

Mary Cheney Said A Federal Marriage Amendment “Is Writing Discrimination Into The Constitution.” Mary Cheney: “I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is. It is writing discrimination into the constitution… Well, I certainly don’t know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill. But you know, what I can say is look, amending the constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong. Now, I would certainly hope that, you know, and understand, this is an issue that Americans do disagree on and that we do need to debate and discuss. And I would certainly hope that those discussions would continue. And I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn’t try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals.” [Fox New Sunday, Fox, 5/14/06]

ROMNEY HAS OPPOSED CIVIL UNIONS SINCE “DAY ONE”…

2012: Romney Senior Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney “Has Not Been In Favor Of Civil Unions, If By Civil Unions You Mean The Equivalency To Marriage But Without The Name Marriage.” “‘[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage,’ Fehrnstrom said. ‘What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.’” [Huffington Post, 1/8/12]

2007: Romney: “I Opposed Then, And I Do Now, Gay Marriage And Civil Union” And “I Am Proud Of The Fact That I And My Team Did Everything Within Our Power And Within The Law To Stand Up For Traditional Marriage.” “During his dinner speech at the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit, the former governor said he was a strong opponent of a November 2003 state supreme court decision making Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage. ‘I opposed then, and I do now,

gay marriage and civil union,’ he said. ‘I am proud of the fact that I and my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage.’” [Associated Press, 1/28/07]

2005: Romney Said He Has Been Against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Since “Day One.” “In February, Romney told a South Carolina Republican audience that ‘from day one, I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.’ But gay rights groups, including a leading GOP organization, accused Romney of flip-flopping, saying he had supported some benefits for gay couples in his 2002 campaign.” [Boston Globe, 6/17/05]

2002: Romney Opposed Civil Unions Saying “For All Intents And Purposes” Civil Unions And Gay Marriage “Are The Same.” In an interview with Bay Windows, Romney was asked, “To you, what is the difference between civil unions between same-sex couples and gay marriage?” He responded, “Very little, if any. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.” He was then asked, “Do you support civil unions?” and responded, “No, because I believe it’s virtually identical to marriage.” [Bay Windows interview, 1/1/02]

…AND WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DENY BENEFITS TO GAY COUPLES IN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING HOSPITAL VISITS

Romney Would Leave “Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” Romney: “My preference again would be to have a national standard, with one standard for the nation. Now that doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t enter into domestic partnerships, and the benefits associated with domestic partnerships could be, developed from, by enterprise, by the state, by the federal government. So one could say for instance that in Iowa, a same sex couple can come together, can adopt a child. And they can have hospital visitation rights and so forth. I mean you could decide what benefits, each state can decide the benefits associated with people who live in domestic partnerships. But I believe the term marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]

 Romney: “So One Could Say For Instance That In Iowa, A Same Sex Couple Can Come Together, Can Adopt A child. And They Can Have Hospital Visitation Rights And So Forth. I Mean You Could Decide What Benefits, Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]

CIVIL UNIONS CONFER KEY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS TO SAME SEX COUPLES

Civil Unions Provide Same Sex Couple Rights and Benefits Including Rights To Inherit Property, Medical Rights, And Family Leave Benefits. “Civil union/domestic partnership laws confer certain rights and benefits upon domestic partners which vary depending on the state law. Some of these rights and benefits include laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession; causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, or loss of consortium; probate law and procedure; adoption law and procedure; insurance benefits; workers’ compensation rights; laws relating to medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification; family leave benefits; public assistance benefits under state laws and laws relating to state taxes.” [Congressional Research Service, 09/04/2004]

In Hawaii, Same-Sex Couples With A Civil Union “Have Access To The Full Range Of State Law Rights And Responsibilities When They Enter Into Their Civil Union.” [Equality Hawaii, accessed 5/9/2012]

 Hawaii’s Civil Union Law Provides Same-Sex Couples Family Law Rights. [Equality Hawaii, accessed 5/9/2012]

 Hawaii’s Civil Union Law Provides Same-Sex Couples Medical And Death-Related Rights, Including Hospital Visitation, Medical Decision-Making, Making Funeral Arrangements,

Partner Health Insurance, Inheritance Rights In The Absence Of A Will And Other Family Benefits. [Equality Hawaii accessed 05/09/12]

Hawaii’s Civil Union Law Provides Partners In A Civil Union Numerous Other Rights And Responsibilities, Including The Right To File Joint State Income Taxes, Property Rights And Workplace Benefits Like Sick Leave. [Equality Hawaii accessed 05/09/12]

New Jersey’s Civil Union Law “Grants Gay Couples Adoption, Inheritance, Hospital Visitation And Medical Decision-Making Rights And The Right Not To Testify Against A Partner In State Court.” [Washington Post, 12/21/2006]

Illinois’s Civil Union Law Provides The “Same Legal Obligations, Responsibilities, Protections, And Benefits That State Law Provides To Married Spouses.” [Equality Illinois, 07/2011]

GEORGE W. BUSH CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS

George W. Bush: “I Don’t Think We Should Deny People Rights To A Civil Union, A Legal Arrangement, If That’s What A State Chooses To Do So.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I, I, I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.” CHARLES GIBSON: “The Republican platform opposes it.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman. Look, if you’re, if you’re interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, that’s through the constitutional process. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making on behalf of the American people.” [ABC News, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, 10/25/04]

ROMNEY SURROGATES HAVE STATED THEIR SUPPORT FOR CIVIL UNIONS

Chris Christie: “I Have Been Just As Adamant That Same-Sex Couples In A Civil Union Deserve The Very Same Rights And Benefits Enjoyed By Married Couples—As Well As The Strict Enforcement Of Those Rights And Benefits.” “Renewing his push for gay marriage to go to New Jersey voters in a referendum in November’s general election, Christie said an ombudsman should be appointed to ensure the state’s civil union law is being followed. ‘I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’ Christie said.” [The Star-Ledger, 2/18/12]

Jon Huntsman: “I Think Civil Unions Are Fair. I Think There’s Such A Thing As Equality Under The Law.” “Personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law. I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. […] And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.” [ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR Republican Primary Debate, 1/7/12]

REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ENDORSED CIVIL UNIONS

Sen. Mark Kirk: “I Support Civil Unions.” At a debate in 2010 Kirk said, “I oppose gay marriage, and– I support civil unions. But I also don’t think we should have a federal takeover of all marriage law in the United States. I think the federal government is already trying to take over too much.” [Illinois Senate Debate, 10/19/10]

Sen. Scott Brown: The Characterization Of Me As “Gay-Hating” Is “Mean Spirited And Certainly A Misrepresentation,” Since “I Have The Same Position As Barack Obama” In Supporting Civil Unions. “He has been the bête noire of gay rights activists since 2001, when he said it was `not normal’

for Jacques and her partner to have children, and referred to Jacques’s role in the relationship as `alleged family responsibilities.’ Brown quickly apologized and said he chose his words poorly. Activists have neither forgotten nor forgiven. `Scott Brown has demonstrated a persistent antagonism toward equality’ for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, said Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, an advocacy group. `He’s not someone who even likes or tolerates gay people or their families.’ Brown responded that `it was never about hating or disliking any particular group because of their sexual orientation. `When I read the headlines in Bay Windows or any other groups – you know, `gay-hating Scott Brown’ – it’s mean-spirited and certainly a misrepresentation,’ he said, `especially when I have the same position as Barack Obama,” who, like Brown, favors civil unions.” [Boston Globe, 11/20/09]

2008: ROMNEY SENT FUNDS TO THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE GROUP, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MARRIAGE

Headline: “Mitt Romney Fuels NOM’s Divisive Racial Tactics” [LGBT Weekly, 3/31/12]

Headline: “Mitt Romney Secretly Supported Anti-Gay-Marriage Group” [Daily Beast, 3/30/12]

Headline: “Mitt Romney’s PAC Funded Anti-Gay Marriage Group Under The Radar” [Huffington Post, 3/30/12]

2008: Romney’s Free And Strong America PAC Contributed $10,000 To National Organization Of Marriage “At A Time When The Anti-Gay Rights Organization Was Seeking Repeal Of A California Law Legalizing Marriage Equality.” “In 2008, Mitt Romney’s political action committee made a $10,000 donation to the National Organization of Marriage at a time when the anti-gay rights organization was seeking repeal of a California law legalizing marriage equality. … But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM’s public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.” [Huffington Post, 3/30/12]

 2008: Romney Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney Donated $10,000 To The National Organization For Marriage And “Feels Strongly That Marriage Is An Institution Between A Man And A Woman.” “Romney, a former Massachusetts governor claimed by Utahns as a favorite son candidate before he dropped out of this year’s presidential race, appears to be positioning himself for another run for the White House. … The former leader of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City also has contributed more than $375,000 from his Free and Strong America political action committee to a variety of conservative candidates and causes. Those causes include California’s Proposition 8, which would reverse that state’s Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage there earlier this year. Romney donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, [Romney spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom said. ‘The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California,’ Fehrnstrom said.” [Deseret News, 10/28/08]

Romney’s $10,000 Donation To The National Organization For Marriage Helped In Their Efforts To Pass California’s Proposition 8 Including A Number Of Ads. “In 2008 presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 through his PAC to the National Organization for Marriage to help in their efforts to pass California’s Proposition 8, which reversed the state court’s decision to legalize gay marriage. Here are three ads Romney helped pay for.” [BuzzFeed 3/8/12]

 Yes On California Proposition 8 Ad: Warned That Children Would Be Taught They Could Marry Someone Of Their Own Sex In Schools. “Yes on 8 TV Ad: Its Already Happened”: Daughter: “Mom, guess what I learned in school today?” Mom: “What sweetie?” “Daughter: “I learned how prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.” Professor Richard Peterson, Pepperdine University School of Law: “Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. When Massachusetts legalized gay

May 10 2012

President Obama and LGBT rights – words and actions bring change

 The President’s personal view is that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so.
 It’s no secret the President has gone through some soul-searching on this issue. He’s talked to his wife about it, like so many couples do. He’s heard from folks—gay friends in long-term, loving relationships; brave young servicemen and women he got to know through the fight to end Don’t, Ask Don’t Tell; staff members; folks who sent compelling letters about their lives. It’s no doubt they’ve shaped his view on this issue.
 In the end, the values that the President cares most deeply about is how we treat other people. The President and First Lady are both practicing Christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put them at odds with the views of others, but when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.
 We make it absolutely clear that we are talking about civil marriages and civil laws. This isn’t a federal issue. We must be respectful of religious liberty, that churches and other faith institutions are still going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are, what they recognize.
 We need to recognize that people are going to have differing views on marriage and those views, even if we disagree strongly, should be respected.
 Mitt Romney not only opposes same sex marriage, but he believes we should amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Romney’s federal marriage amendment would be the first time the nation amended the Constitution to deny Americans equal rights.
 Mitt Romney also opposes civil unions, which could rollback a whole range of equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian Americans.
The Obama Administration’s record in support of the LGBT community includes:
 Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The President signed the bill to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell on December 22, 2010, putting in motion the end of a discriminatory policy that ran counter to our values as Americans. As of September 20, 2011, when the repeal took effect, gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans can serve openly in our Armed Forces and without fear of losing their jobs for who they are and who they love.
 Ending the Legal Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): If a couple is married under state law, whether they are gay or straight, they’re entitled to exactly the same legal rights as any other couple, and the federal government has no businesses invalidating those marriages. In February 2011, the President and Attorney General
announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA against equal protection constitutional challenges brought by same-sex couples married under state law. In July 2011, the White House announced the President’s support of the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Jerrold Nadler, which would repeal DOMA and uphold the principle that gay and lesbian couples should receive the same Federal rights and legal protections as straight couples. The President has long supported a legislative repeal of DOMA.
 Signing Historic Hate Crimes Legislation: President Obama overcame years of partisan gridlock to pass and sign the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, which extends the coverage of Federal hate crimes law to include attacks based on the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
 Ensuring Hospital Visitation Rights for LGBT Patients and Their Loved Ones: Following a directive from the President, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now requires all hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds – just about every hospital in America – to allow visitation rights for LGBT patients. The President also directed HHS to ensure that medical decision-making rights of LGBT patients are respected.
 Preventing Bullying Against LGBT Students: President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services convened students, parents, and teachers, in addition to non-profit leaders, advocates, and policymakers, for the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in March 2011. Early in the Obama Administration, six Federal agencies joined together to establish the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee to explore ways to provide guidance on combating bullying to individuals and organizations.
 Developing and Implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy: President Obama fulfilled a pledge to those with HIV by developing and releasing the Nation’s first comprehensive plan for responding to the domestic HIV epidemic. In 2009, President Obama signed legislation reauthorizing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program for four years to provide critical health services to uninsured and underinsured people living with HIV. The Administration has also prioritized funding increases for HIV prevention, care, and research in each successive President’s budget.
 Expanding Access to Health Coverage: The Affordable Care Act ensures that Americans have secure, stable, and affordable insurance. In 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against anyone due to a pre-existing condition, and because of the law, insurers can no longer turn someone away just because he or she is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. In addition, the federal website, HealthCare.gov, designed to help all consumers find the health insurance best suited to their needs, makes it easy to locate health insurers that cover domestic partners.
 Addressing Health Care Disparities: The Affordable Care Act is funding preventive efforts for communities, including millions of dollars to use evidence-based interventions to address tobacco control, obesity prevention, HIV-related health disparities, better nutrition and physical activity. In addition, the new health care law is making other investments that will help address health disparities. Funding is going toward building a more diverse and culturally competent health care workforce, as well as investing in community health centers to serve up to 20 million

May 9 2012

The President announces his support for same-sex marriage – Well done Mr. President! #same-sex marriage

From the LA Times – Obama declares support for same-sex marriage
By Michael A. Memoli and Kathleen Hennessey

May 9, 2012, 12:02 p.m.

WASHINGTON — President Obama, marking the end of a prolonged “evolution” on the issue, now favors allowing homosexual couples to marry, he said in a television interview Wednesday.

The announcement comes days after Vice President Joe Biden’s comments that he was “absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage put new pressure on Obama to clarify his position on the issue.

Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts Wednesday: “Over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

Obama’s new position realigns him with the growing number of Democratic officials who have embraced full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Gay-rights activists have widely believed that the president privately supported same-sex marriages, but withheld a public declaration out of concerns about alienating independent voters in key swing states.

There is a movement among activists in the party to adopt a so-called “marriage equality” plank in the official platform this summer. Such language would mark the continuance of the party’s own evolution. In 2000, the Democratic platform stated simply that the party supported “the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation,” and “an equitable alignment of benefits.”

In 2004, in the face of an effort supported by the Bush campaign to put gay marriage bans to statewide referendums across the country, the Democratic platform stated that marriage “has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there.”

By 2008, the party vowed to “enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act,” and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act “and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”

It has been nearly a year and a half since Obama first indicated that his stance against gay marriage, but in support of “strong civil unions,” had begun to evolve. Obama has in fact taken multiple stances on the issue. In 1996, as a candidate for the state Senate in Illinois, he told a gay rights group that he favored same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to block them. As a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama said he believed marriage is between a man and a woman, citing his faith as the underpinning reason for that belief.

In 2008, he repeated that assertion to influential evangelical pastor Rick Warren, adding “for me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, God’s in the mix.” But Obama also said he would not support an amendment adding that definition to the Constitution.

Defining marriage “has been a matter of state law. that has been our tradition,” he said. At the same time, Obama opposed a California ballot initiative outlawing same-sex marriage because it was “divisive and discriminatory.”

Obama had plenty of company in such murky waters. All of his top competitors for his party’s nomination drew the same line — opposing marriage and arguing that civil unions were sufficient to protect the legal rights of gay couples.

Since then, Obama’s party has steadily drifted away from that position — and the president tried to suggest, without stating clearly, that he’s moving with it. In October 2010, during a question-and-answer session with progressive bloggers, Obama first signaled he was reconsidering his previous position.

“I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage,” he told Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog. “But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.”

At a news conference nearly two months later, after he signed a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, Obama restated his “baseline” position, support for “a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have.”

“I think that’s the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we’re going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward,” he said.

The president’s stated “evolution” was widely viewed as a wink and a nod to gay rights activists. Still, the president’s advisors gave no indication that they planned to come out with a new stance before the November election.

Biden’s comments appeared to shift that calculus. While the White House claimed the remarks were essentially a restatement of the president’s position, it was obvious they were everything the president’s stance was not: open and clear.

As the issue snowballed, Biden’s comments demonstrated how difficult Obama’s “evolution” would be to explain in a debate — as the president will undoubtedly be asked to do — or even in a press briefing, as White House spokesman Jay Carney experienced in a spirited press briefing filled with elliptical or incomplete answers.

On Monday, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said the episode exposed an authenticity problem for the president. Publicly at least, Obama shared the same position as Mitt Romney, that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

“He doesn’t want to fully embrace what his vice president is saying, but he wants the benefit of what the vice president is saying,” he told MSNBC. “People just aren’t buying what he’s selling because they don’t believe he’s real anymore, that it’s politics. And he has become the ultimate Washington politician, and this latest episode in regard to gay marriage is a great example of that.”

 

May 8 2012

President Obama Calls on Congress to Act on “To Do List” to Create Jobs

President Obama calls on Congress to move forward with a concrete plan that creates jobs and helps restore middle class security.

At this make-or-break moment for the middle class Congress needs to take action on these common sense initiatives.  We need to create an economy built to last that creates secure American jobs and makes things the rest of the world buys – not one built on outsourcing, loopholes, or risky financial deals.

Congress’ To Do List:

  1. Reward companies who bring jobs back to the U.S. with lower taxes and pay for it by eliminating tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.
  1. Cut red tape so hard working, responsible homeowners who are paying their mortgage can refinance at today’s lower rates.
  1. Help hard working small business owners create jobs by giving them a tax credit for new hires.
  1. Invest in American clean energy manufacturers who create American jobs through innovation of new technologies and new fuels that reduce our reliance on foreign oil and lead to more secure energy sources.
  1. Ensure our commitment to our veterans is as strong as they are by creating a Veterans Job Corps that helps hire veterans as cops, firefighters, and serving their communities.

Insourcing:

  • The President will travel to New York to talk about the importance of creating jobs and bringing jobs back to America.
  • The President believes we must attract and keep good jobs in the U.S. by rewarding companies who bring jobs back to America with lower taxes and pay for it by eliminating tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.
  • Specifically, the President calls  on Congress to pass legislation that gives companies moving operations back to the U.S. a new 20 percent tax credit for moving expenses and pay for it by ending the tax break that allows companies to deduct expenses associated with moving operations overseas.
  • It is simply wrong that companies get tax breaks for shipping U.S. jobs to foreign countries.  No company should be rewarded for outsourcing production and jobs.
  • We should be rewarding those companies that bring jobs back to our shores with tax credits.  This tax credit will cover moving expenses for businesses that close down production abroad and bring jobs back to the U.S.
  • Rather than moving forward to reward companies that bring jobs back to America, Republicans are fighting to preserve tax breaks that incentivize sending jobs overseas.
May 8 2012

Scott Brown just voted NO on a bill to stop student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1st

Friend,

Our Republican opponent Scott Brown just voted NO on a bill to stop student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1st.

Can you believe it?

Just a few weeks ago, Scott Brown voted once again to protect big oil subsidies. And now he is telling thousands of college students in Massachusetts — kids drowning in debt from the soaring cost of tuition and fees — that they have to pay even more.

This isn’t about economics — it’s about our values.

Tell Scott Brown and the Republican Party to stop blocking action on student loans.

Scott Brown had a choice this morning: To help students who are trying to build a future for themselves, or to stand with the leadership in the Republican Party.

Scott Brown made his choice loud and clear.

And Massachusetts voters are seeing through his independent act. Even after Scott Brown and the Republican Party have thrown the kitchen sink at Elizabeth this past week, a new poll conducted yesterday shows Elizabeth and Scott Brown are tied at 45-45.

We need your help to tell every student, parent and grandparent about Scott Brown’s vote today — and to make sure Massachusetts voters know whose side he’s on.

Thanks,

Mindy Myers
Campaign Manager
Elizabeth for MA

Donate

May 7 2012

President Obama will be in Boston for 3 events on Monday June 25

If you have been waiting to donate to the campaign the time has come.  Show your support for the re-election now.
The President will be in Boston on the afternoon and evening of June 25, 2012.  There will be three events.  The big event will be at Symphony Hall.  This will be a large and exciting event that will be accessible to most budgets.  Tickets are $250 for the balcony and  $1000 or  $2500 for seats at table on the floor of the hall (pops style) ; hosts for the event (write or raise $10,000) will have the opportunity for a photo with our President!  Please respond ASAP-  we expect this event to sell out.
There will also be an afternoon round-table with the President limited to 25 people as well as an evening dinner party at a private home.  These events require a significant donation to attend.  If you are interested in one of the higher dollar events please contact me for more details at  mkarmel@womenforchange.com
May 2 2012

President Obama Travels To Afghanistan – the details spelled out

From our inbox 

·         We have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 of our men and women will leave by the end of the summer. Steady reductions will continue after that. And as our Alliance has agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

 

·         Tonight the President said, “My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.”

 

·         Today, President Obama traveled to Afghanistan to sign an historic Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan; to visit with our troops; and to address the American people about how we will responsibly end the war in Afghanistan.

 

·         President Obama and President Karzai agreed to begin these negotiations nearly two years ago in Washington, DC and it is fitting that we complete them in Kabul, as a demonstration of our respect for the sovereignty of the Afghan nation, and respect for the Afghan people.

 

·         The Strategic Partnership Agreement provides a long-term framework for relations between the United States and Afghanistan after the drawdown of US forces. The SPA details how the partnership between our countries will be normalized as the war comes to an end. Just as we did in Iraq, we are building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability and prosperity, while advancing our shared goal of defeating al Qaeda and contributing to the security of the region.

 

·         This Agreement comes at a time when we have made significant progress toward achieving our goal in Afghanistan: defeating al Qaeda, and denying it the ability to rebuild a safe-haven. It is fitting that the SPA is being signed one year to the day that Osama bin Laden was taken out, putting al Qaeda further on a path to defeat.

 

·         This plan completes our mission and ends the war in Afghanistan as fast as we safely and responsibly can. After a decade of war, we are now at a pivotal moment. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half. We have a clear path to finish our work in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

 

Additional Details of Strategic Partnership Agreement:

·         The SPA is one component of our strategy to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan while achieving our objectives. That strategy has five elements: transitioning to Afghan lead by 2014; training Afghan Security Forces; building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan; reconciliation; and promoting regional stability.

 

·         First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in areas where Afghan Security Forces are moving into the lead. In Chicago, ISAF will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans move into the lead.

 

·         As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 of our men and women will leave by the end of the summer. Steady reductions will continue after that. And as our Alliance has agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

 

·         Second, we are training Afghan Security Forces to get the job done. As our troops draw down, Afghan forces have surged and become more capable. This year, those forces will peak ahead of schedule at 352,000. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

 

·         Third, we are building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan. The SPA sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It sets forth the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including mutual commitments to combat terrorism, and strengthen democratic institutions. U.S. commitments to support Afghanistan’s security, economic development, and regional cooperation are matched by Afghan commitments to strengthen accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights. Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country.

 

·         Fourth, we are pursuing Afghan-led reconciliation. In coordination with the Afghan government, the U.S. has made it clear to the Taliban that they can be a part of Afghanistan’s future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in a settlement. A pathway to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk that path will have to contend with strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

 

·         Fifth, we are building an international consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. Pakistan can be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. In this pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

 

·         There are those who will ask why we need a firm timeline. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America’s image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that.

 

·         Others have asked why we don’t pack up and leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must pursue a transition that gives Afghanistan the opportunity to stand on its own two feet. Otherwise, stability could be threatened, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more.

Apr 30 2012

Political Update

WATCH: Bill Clinton Video on President Obama as Commander in Chief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD75KOoNR9k&feature=player_embedded

N.H. could be decisive battleground
Boston Globe // Matt Viser
WASHINGTON – New Hampshire offers a mere four electoral votes. But President Obama and Mitt Romney are fiercely pursuing the hearts and minds of the Granite State’s notoriously finicky electorate in a race that could come down to the wire in November. New Hampshire is seen as one of about 14 swing states in this election, and the only one in New England. Obama visited the state twice in the last five months; Michelle Obama was in Concord last month, and Vice President Joe Biden has been to the state three times this year. For Romney, the significance of New Hampshire is personal as well as political. The state is home to his summer residence and was the launch pad of his candidacy last summer. He was a regular visitor before the hotly contested primary in January. And Tuesday night, instead of celebrating in one of the five states holding a primary that day, Romney is returning to the Granite State for a speech and a victory party that his campaign considers his official pivot to the general election.

Big money in a big way for Obama’s reelection campaign
Washington Post // T.W. Farnam
President Obama’s reelection campaign has been rapidly increasing the number of big money “bundlers” collecting checks for his reelection, doubling the number of financiers who have brought in at least $500,000.The influx during the first quarter of the year shows the president is getting an especially warm embrace from Hollywood and the broader entertainment industry, partly making up for a drop in support from Wall Street after Democrats passed broad new regulations for the financial sector, according to a list of fundraisers released by the campaign on Friday.
Swing-state unemployment down, Obama’s chances up
AP // Paul Wiseman
The improving economy is swinging the pendulum in President Barack Obama’s favor in the 14 states where the presidential election will likely be decided. Recent polls show Obama gaining an edge over his likely Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, in several so-called swing states — those that are considered up for grabs. What’s made the difference is that unemployment has dropped more sharply in several swing states than in the nation as a whole. A resurgence in manufacturing is helping the economy — and Obama’s chances — in the industrial states of Ohio and Michigan.
Poll Finds Public Skeptical, Leaning Slightly Democratic
National Journal // Matthew Cooper
As the presidential and congressional election season rolls on, the political landscape seems somewhat more favorable for Democrats than for Republicans, but neither party has been able to overcome the deep distrust that Americans seem to have for Congress, and neither side can afford to be anything less than nervous come Election Day. The newest findings of the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll show a public that’s predisposed to voting more Democratic. In a head-to-head race, President Obama bests Mitt Romney 47 percent to 39 percent, with 9 percent of respondents saying neither and 5 percent refusing or not knowing. Likewise, 50 percent of respondents wanted Democrats to keep control of the U.S. Senate, compared to 39 percent who favored a GOP majority. And by a 3 point margin, 46 percent to 43 percent, those surveyed said they wanted Democrats to take control of the House—down from a much sharper 11 percent lead as recently as January. Democrats found their strongest support among minorities and women.

Romney’s fiscal fantasy plan
Washington Post // Lawrence Summers
Political arithmetic is always suspect, and one should always examine carefully the claims of those seeking votes. Smart observers have learned to distinguish between the claims of political candidates and their advisers and proposals that have been evaluated by independent scorekeepers such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This principle was aptly illustrated by the “budget analysis” Mitt Romney’s chief economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, recently put forward. In a Wall Street Journal op-edthis week, Hubbard constructs a budget plan that he imagines President Obama might propose someday, engages in a set of his own extrapolations and then makes assertions about it. He does not discuss the actual Obama plan or how it has been evaluated by the CBO. Nor does Hubbard invest his credibility in defending the claims that Romney has made about his own fiscal plans. He simply states that “Yes, President Obama and Mitt Romney have budgets with competing visions. But Gov. Romney’s budget makes tough choices” — without delving into the specifics or trade-offs that Romney’s “tough choices” entail.

Mitt Romney’s media coverage has been more positive than President Obama’s, study finds
Boston Globe // Callum Borchers
Mitt Romney complained last week of a “vast left-wing conspiracy”in the media, but a study published todayrevealed the presumptive Republican nominee has enjoyed more positive press coverage than President Obama in recent months. The Pew Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that negative coverage of Obama outweighed positive coverage in each of 15 weeks between Jan. 2 and April 15. Romney, meanwhile, had six weeks of mostly positive stories and another four in which positive and negative coverage were roughly equal.  In fact, positive stories about the former Massachusetts governor have outnumbered negative ones almost 2-to-1 since the Feb. 28 Michigan primary, which Romney won.

Mr. Romney’s secret life
Washington Post // Editorial
MITT ROMNEY’S contemptuous attitude toward the importance of public disclosure is increasingly troubling. Whether it involves the details of his personal finances or the identity of his big fundraisers, the presumptive Republican is setting a new, low bar for transparency — one that does not augur well for how the Romney White House would conduct itself if he were elected. First is the matter of tax returns. Mr. Romney’s campaign, belatedly and under pressure, released a single year’s worth of tax information in January along with a summary for the 2011 return

The Amnesia Candidate
New York Times // Paul Krugman
Just how stupid does Mitt Romneythink we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.  But the question was raised with particular force last week, when Mr. Romney tried to make a closed drywall factory in Ohio a symbol of the Obama administration’s economic failure. It was a symbol, all right — but not in the way he intended.  First of all, many reporters quickly noted a point that Mr. Romney somehow failed to mention: George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, was president when the factory in question was closed. Does the Romney campaign expect Americans to blame President Obamafor his predecessor’s policy failure?

Karl Rove: Obama Is Winning
TIME // Adam Sorensen
Conservative horcrux Karl Rove is out with his first official electoral college projectionof 2012 and… it’s really bullish on Obama. Rove has South Carolina, which McCain won by 9 points in 2008, rated as a toss-up, and Texas–Texas–merely leaning Republican. The result, in Rove’s model, is 284 electoral votes within Obama’s grasp, 172 for Romney and 82 toss-ups.
Now, maybe this is some kind of devilishly brilliant plot to sow complacency among the ranks of the enemy, but Rove’s predictions were pretty spot-on in 2008and 2010. Either way, it has to be a little spooky for Democrats or Republicans looking at his map. [Via Weigel]